CT senator Chris Murphy does exactly that every time. Long before we know the details, he’s running his stupid mouth, claiming that the attack is more evidence that he’s right in the issue . he does it every single time, and always before he knows any details.

Beto Oroarke was t demogouging when he interrupted a press conference?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The indisputable fact is that where there are more guns, there are more gun deaths.

Availability is a huge issue


Based on the number of gun deaths per capita in 2019 alone, states with the most gun violence are:

Alaska - 24.4
Mississippi - 24.2
Wyoming - 22.3
New Mexico 22.3
Alabama - 22.2
Louisiana - 22.1
Missouri - 20.6
South Carolina - 19.9
Arkansas - 19.3
Montana - 19.3
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Former President Donald Trump has called on US lawmakers to prioritise funding for school security over sending military aid to Ukraine.


:faga:

How many of the guns used in the commission of crimes were purchased in those places?

So yes, it’s a party line and an objective falsehood that strict gun laws have had no effect.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Burgers opinion is certainly germane to a discussion about gun control.
It’s illustrative to the fact that the NRA and the arms industry have controlled the discussion for years to the detriment of Americans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As usual, anyone who maintains a consistent gun control position is wrong and if they don’t they’re flip flopping.
Did you know that after the Columbine school shooting over 10,000 cops were hired to "prevent school shootings"? 43% of schools in the USA have law enforcement officers & none of them have prevented a single school shooting. Instead, they just arrest kids for absurd violations.
Millions have been made selling guns to people who are convinced by the arms lobby rhetoric that buying one makes them safer.
The data unequivocally says that’s false.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So telling the Truth is demogouging

Only to those who accept the lies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you didn’t read what i wrote. he concludes it’s due to lack of gun control, long before he knows the details.

how do you address availability? i agree with you availability is a huge problem. I agree with you 100%.

I’m assuming you’d address availability with strict, prospective, gun laws

That doesn’t address the guns that are out there. And it’s precisely why our cities are still war zones, despite having strict gun laws

Do you know what einstein’s definition of “insanity” was, wayne? doing the same thing again and again, and expecting a different result.

How many times does a liberal idea have to fail, before you’d conclude it just doesn’t work?

most people, they see something fail 4 or 5 times, it starts to sink in. not you guys.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

tell me wayne, how many things are more important to americas interests, than protecting our children?

How many things are more important to you, than safeguarding our children? I’m very curious to know how many things are more important to you.

j
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So far Republicans have blamed the shooting in Texas on the following instead of guns
1. FBI
2. CRT
3. Woke mobs
4. Doors that lock
5. Doors that don’t lock
6. Too many doors
7. Lockdowns
8. Cops
9. Not enough cops
10. Video games
11. Teachers
12. Ukraine aid
13. Chicago
14. Guns exist and nothing possibly can be done
15. Not safeguarding children, because Ukraine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nobody said the ukraine aid prevented us from safeguarding kids.

when the facts dont support your ideology, you lie. you can never, ever admit that liberalism has any flaws. neither can wayne or spence. not once, not ever.

If liberalism is so great, why is CT ( which has been a 40 year experiment in pure liberalism) bankrupt, unbelievably expensive, home to some of the greatest income inequality on the planet, the cities are abject failures,, and people are leaving?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nine out of the ten poorest states are Republican led and 95 out of the 100 poorest counties are also in Red States, but tell me again how Republican policies are great for Americans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wealthy individuals lean left, poor individuals lean right.

What i asked, and which you dodged, was about CT.

CT is one of the wealthiest states, if you’re talking about the citizens. If you’re talking about the state itself, it’s bankrupt, despite having very high taxes applied to very high incomes. Meaning, we have the liberals who run the state, a ton of money. It didn’t work.

What states are people
moving to in the biggest numbers Pete? Red states or blue states?

Have fun contorting yourself like a gymnast, to avoid answering.

Therebarevolentynofnolaces in red states where I’d never want to live. But there are also places in red states which offer a great quality of life at a cheap price - Charlotte suburbs,,Nashville suburbs, plenty of places in NH where they can’t build $650,000 houses fast enough.

Can you point me to any places in blue states, which offer a high quality of life with very low taxes? Or are all of those places in conservative states?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how many things are more important to americas interests, than protecting our children?

We’ll for most Americans anything! Would be the answer

But that’s not the GOPs answer is it

Unless it the unborn. Or grooming of children by teachers , or Disney or about transgenders kids

Then the GOP is all over it

20 slaughtered in a class room.

It’s every other reason on the planet. Their too afraid to mention the Weapon.. and be labeled a Rino
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly. I'm sure the states w/higher gun deaths are mostly R states. Look at health and welfare stats also - its not much different.

Now that Jim is concerned about income inequality and defines high quality of life by how you die or how little you pay in taxes and getting shot is good, here's the lowest gun deaths per capita.


California
8.5
3,449
Connecticut
6
219
New York
5.3
1,052
Rhode Island
5.1
54
New Jersey
5
443
Massachusetts
3.7
268
Hawaii
3.4

i’m not afraid to discuss the weapon. but you won’t discuss anything else.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

are rich liberals, wealthy because of liberalism? and are poor people, poor because of conservative state government?

The people who live in Ct tend to be very wealthy. But the state itself, is in horrific financial shape. the unfounded debt, I think, is more than $75k for every human being in the state.

When you have astronomical
taxes and also have crushing debt, what does that tell you?

Take a drive through New Haven or Hartford. Are those places a lot better than big cities in red states?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

let’s get to the point. Instead of telling us that the GOP is evil, why not tell us what laws you’d propose, which are practical, constitutional, and which would likely have a meaningful beneficial impact to gun violence?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're an actuary - Seems like there is a pretty good correlation between the states political leanings and their wealth (All people don't measure things by just the $).

rich people used lean right. in the past few years, that changed. now they lean left.

that doesn’t mean liberalism created that wealth. it’s harder to be wealthy in liberal states Paul. i could
move to NH and put almost $1,000 a month in my pocket, between the lack of income tax and sales tax. $1,000 a month, every month. Know what that adds up to over a few decades?

A ton.

CT is t rich because of liberalism. It’s rich, primarily, because if it’s good fortune to be next door to New York City.

And while you keep talking about the citizens of CT, for some reason you don’t seem to want to discuss the financial status of our state government.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not harder to be rich in liberal states. The stats prove otherwise. You're holding the location of Ct against CT while ignoring the advantages of the location of FL. The CT debt sucks. But people aren't moving to FL. just bc of taxes/policies. The US pop. is getting older so they want to move to warmer place and get out of the snow/cold.

It is not as simple as looking at one metric and ignoring others. Every state has its good/bad.

i just proved it’s harder to be wealthy in CT. living here costs me $1,000 more each month, compared to the cost of living in NH. Hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. And i have literally nothing to show for that. I get nothing i couldnt get in a nice NH suburb like Hollis or Brookline.

My salary has absolutely nothing to do with the state government of CT. Absolutely nothing. Neither does the salary of the hedge fund managers in New Canaan.

You’re confusing correlation with causation. it’s a common mistake, and a gigantic mistake.

Today’s democratic party platform is attractive to the wealthy. Today’s republican platform is attractive to the working poor. Neither party is causing its fans to be wealthy or poor.

if people are moving for weather, why are they moving to FL and not to southern CA.

You have fun answering that one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Somehow it is a lot harder to be wealthy in Conn than those states led by Rs yet the richest states are led by Ds. So who should we believe that stats based on 350M people or what you say?

And if your company was in Ark you would be paid a lot less.

You're looking at only 1 fact of many.

a state with rich residents, is different than a state that has a lot of money and can help its needy citizens.

Again, i used elementary school
arithmetic to show that for folks like me, it’s a lot harder to accumulate wealth in CT than, say, NH. i will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes that i wouldn’t pay in NH. and nothing to show for it.

CT is a beautiful and expensive place. Therefore, if you’re wealthy, it’s a terrific place to live. So it will attract wealthy people.

You’re again confusing correlation with causation. Most of the country’s grizzly bears live in Alaska, which is a red state. Can i therefore conclude that conservatism is better for grizzly bears than liberalism? or would that be stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i can move to NH and keep the same salary. same salary, much lower taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And when my company moved to regional offices in Tx and were looking for people to staff the office they said don't expect the same raises. Goldman Sachs said if you leave NY don't expect a NY salary.

i’m familiar with regional salary adjustments. and at every company i’ve worked at, it was assumed
that the extra money to live in the northeast, was nowhere near enough to compensate you for the higher cost of living.

Everything is more expensive in CT. taxes, car taxes to the town ( which doesn’t exist in many places) has taxes, utility rates, groceries, UCONN, almost every aspect if life is more expensive. the cumulative additional
cost over a lifetime, is astronomical.

And we both know, that as boomers retire and the state is paying those pensions, taxes will go way up. The penalty to live here cannot fail to increase over the next 20 years.

And i have no idea what we get for that money. Our roads stink, our cities stink, UCONN is expensive for a public school.

I work for a huge huge company. Every CT employee could
move to NH and keep the same salary. So how would
i be wrong, if i said it’s harder to accumulate wealth in CT than it would be in NH?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when you’re asking whether or not liberalism makes it harder to accumulate wealth over a lifetime, taxes is an obvious metric. The state government controls its tax rates

Do you admit that over 50 years, you’d pay a ton more in taxes if you lived in CT, compared to living in a Boston suburb in NH?

And maybe you need to look at other factors. Fine. Please tell me what factors make CT look cheaper than NH? What factors offset the higher taxes in CT?

if UCONN was free, you’d have a point. It ain’t.

If we had no gas taxes, you’d have a point. But we do.

All i can think of is tolls. NH had tolls and we don’t. But we have insane gas taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny thing, it was only a few years ago that most wealthy people leaned right. And liberals used that fact (and it was indeed a fact) to say that the GOP only cared about the wealthy, and that the democrats were the party of the little guy.

Today, most wealthy people lean left. and all of a sudden, democrats don't think it's bad to be the party of the rich. Now, the lefties here claim it's a bad sign that the GOP is the party of the working stiff.

Whatever fits the narrative.

Jim's been listening to Faux again, where he's heard Rafael Cruz complain about the liberalization of the coastal elites............

Cruz is a graduate of Princeton and Yale, a lawyer, a senator, the multimillionaire husband of a Goldman Sachs executive, who sends his kids to an exclusive school, but sure, let’s listen to him on ‘elites’!

And whether it's Cruz, Stefanik, Hawley, John Kennedy, or any of the countless other GOP privileged elites pretending they aren't, it's clear being a shameless, lying, opportunist willing to do and say anything is mandatory for success in the GOP. Principles are a liability.

your only about taxes or wealth and totally ignore every other stat which show states run by Rs are in a worse position. other than taxes the R states are near the bottom in most quality of life stats, maternal mortality, low wages, low levels of mental health access, high incarceration rate, healthcare, infrastucture.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...tes-to-live-in

Even Fox business ranks D states better.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyl...ve-2021-report

"your only about taxes"

You said CT doesn't make it harder to accumulate wealth. I pointed out the fact that our taxes are much higher than average. I believe that makes it harder to accumulate wealth. You apparently disagree, you say it's not that simple, yet you won't say what the CT state government does, which makes it easier to accumulate wealth?

Please list the things that our state government does (not things that some citizens do, but things that the democrats in Hartford enacted) which make it easier for CT residents to accumulate wealth?

Just because a state has a large number of rich/poor people, doesn't mean the state government had an efefct on those people being rich or poor.

Are you saying the town government of Greenwich helped its citizens get rich? Or did they create a place where rich people want to live? Those are two very very different things.

So the GOP is responsible for red states that aren't nice. But liberalism has nothing to do with the plight in Chicago, or how expensive CT is, or anything else bad that happens in blue places.

Paul, there are places in NH where I'd never want to live. But there are also places in NH (as well as NC and SC) where I would want to live, places with a great quality of life and super low taxes.

Can you point me to any places in the country that are in blue states, which have a high quality of life, and super low taxes? Or are all such places in red states?

Greenwich has some of the best schools in the country and the more right leaning ones have the worse schools in the state. Those places that have high qualities of life and super low taxes are the most liberal area in the conservative states. So as I've said numerous times in not as simple as you make it. Many of those people in NH who are prospering live in So. NH and work in Mass.

There is a pretty damn good correlation between the wealth and a states politics.

"Greenwich has some of the best schools in the country "

And is that because of the democrats in Hartford? Or is it because they literally have more money than they know what to do with, and because the riff raff can't afford to live there? And if it's because of the money, WHAT DID THE STATE DEMOCRATS DO, to enable those residents to get rich?

I taught. 90% of success/failure in public schools, is determined at home.

Ang again, if people re moving for weather, why not to southern CA?

"Those places that have high qualities of life and super low taxes are the most liberal area in the conservative states."

You saying it, doesn't make it so.

"There is a pretty damn good correlation between the wealth and a states politics"

Yet you refuse to post a single syllable, about what the CT state democrats did, to enable those Greenwich residents to become so successful.

I concede that CT state democrats have done things to make CT an attractive place for multi millionaires to live in. But I don't concede that the state helped those people obtain their wealth, and for as adamant as you say the state did help, you won't specify how.

So I guess it is just randomness that makes the poorest counties mostly in Rs states and the richest counties mostly in D states and mosty the poorest states run by Rs and the richest states mostly run by Ds or should we talk about the outliers like S. NH or Ashville or Brentwood TN?

It might not be a coincidence! Maybe the democratic governments in those places, are creating environments which help make people rich. But you can't point to one single example of that, so pardon me if I'm skeptical. And if that were the case, why haven't the CT state democrats replicated that formula in Bridgeport? Whatever you believe they did, it seems they started at the NY border, and kept moving east until they got to Bridgeport, and then they put a halt to it, apparently.

Why not look at the places that are working (good quality of life, low taxes) and see if we can expand on whatever they may have done? But you don't want to do that, because none of you can bear to admit that the conservative agenda, for all its flaws, has some good ideas too.

My brother moved to Fraklin TN many years ago. Great schools, new roads, super low taxes, it was an up and coming place. Now it's one of the hottest markets in the nation. He sold his house for more than triple what he paid for it 10-12 years ago.

The NH suburbs of Bedford, Hollis, Brookline, Amherst...they literally can't build $600,000 houses fast enough. I don't even know what the political affiliation is of those places, but they're located in a purplish state. Same with the Charlotte NC suburbs. They're not deep red, though I guess the places in SC, like Fort Mill, are.

I say let's expand on what they're doing. You dismiss them as outliers.

Why do I have to point out one place. look at the country as a whole. The richest states are primarily run Democrats. The poorest states are primarily run by Republicans. The richest counties are primarily in Democratic states. The poorest counties are primarily and Republican states. pretty clear. How about we expand on what the more successful counties or states are doing and raise taxes and provide better benefits like more access to mental health and the better educational system so high tech companies have more incentive to go to them? And you fail to consider that the poorest people are going to go to the biggest cities where they can get the mental health help, access to drug treatment centers and hospitals, public transportation excetera. Instead you try to say that Democratic policies have made those cities poor while failing to understand the population who lives there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about we regulate like we do cars and trucks, adding we don’t sell Indy race cars to the general public.