DJL

Just that most incumbents win reelections. That's why I haven't held much faith in anyone beating Trump but if they do we'll likely be back to 8 year cycles. I could see Biden fizzling out but I think Bloomberg who stay all 8. The only real lefty issue he champions is gun control. I don't know what to say about Sanders but I tend to agree. He could only win initially on the "anyone but Trump" vote but he appears to be incapable of working with others to get things passed and I think that he will be toxic to Democrats running for Senate and Congress.

Google hosts a delegate count on their page. https://www.google.com/search?q=democratic+delegate+count&oq=democratic+delega&aqs=chrome.0.0l2j69i57j0l5.5725j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

And then there was this knucklehead who came along with this hockey-stick global warming thing. Oh the temerity!

I like how this turned into claims that Brent is the biggest Socialist on here. To continue, I believe it was public funding that developed that AR-15 he loves so much.

I'll bet Pete came that conclusion himself unless Biden offered VP but I doubt it came with a "stand down" order. He knows that nobody wins the race with a third place average and leaving the race on a high note lines him up for a Governor or Senate position. He can come back 8 years from now as a serious candidate with time in the saddle at a senior position.

That's basically step one in understanding a multifaceted issue regarding pay and cost of living. First there exist a quantity of people who hold those jobs, some are new some are old. That job exists over a time period and the local economic cycle changes as new people accept the job for the same rate, people who need jobs take jobs. Eventually, those people decide to do something about it. It's a risk they take but they collectively take he issue to the employer. In this situation their gamble didn't pay off but you can bet that the school heard the shot across their bow and understand it's something they need to deal with.

You're referring to his court case and that was a "fuck you" about cooperating. That's basically why he lost the case, because he didn't play nice. Do you think that invalidates the global weight of research that has been shared and is being conducted via open source review and peer review? Basically you can personally look at any aspect of it and draw your own conclusions.

But the moment you put a magazine in the picture with more than a 5 round capacity your Mini 14 turns into an assault rifle in the State of NY.

What type of ammo? Is it semi-auto? Edit: I realize you're doing the "libtards are scared of scary things" and trying to say that's what the definition is about but there are three elements: magazine capacity, ammo type, rate of fire. Your hello kitty AK-47 semi-auto with a clown nose silencer and a little glass vase for flowers like they used to put inside VW's is an "Assault Rifle", Assault "Style" Firearm, whatever you want to change the combination of words to.

Banana clip taped to another banana clip so you can switch to a new clip! (Nevermind that you just bent your shit to hell and got dirt jammed in it the second you had to get low). Yup, that clip is the basic cliche, the video clip not the banana clip.

We could say we're just talking about the scary looks of it - it's black, has accessory slides, flash suppressor, folding stock, curved clip, No Fear stickers, etc. BUT the context of the conversation is something designed with a combination of high power round, large magazine capacity and high rate of fire that makes it best suited to kill as many humans in the shortest possible time-frame. Remove any one of those three and you're back at a hunting rifle. Although nobody is going to make a bolt action rifle with a banana clip.

Yeah, there are a bunch of guys out there who will swear that the AR-15 is a great hunting rifle but it's really just a varmit and pig killer. You need to be a really fuckin' good shot to use it for anything larger than a goat or else you're tracking a wounded animal going through a miserable death. The guy they reference shooting elk in the article is a firearms instructor and he took the animals at 300 yd with a head shot. The other guy rechambers to a .277. So these guys aren't your typical bubbas. Additionally, if you need 13 follow-up shots you really shouldn't be there to begin with and should just enjoy a day at home eating crayons.

That depends on what your goal is. If we're talking about school shootings then a kid shot in the chest with a .223 vs 9mm is going to have the same outcome so it doesn't matter what the gun is if you can deliver the same magazine size as fast as you can pull the trigger. The desire to ban "assault weapons" has its foundation in the ability of those weapons to inflict lethal damage to as many people as possible in a short amount of time. They possess a combination of power, magazine size and trigger speed. If you remove any single one of those characteristics you're back at a hunting rifle. For gun crimes the issue is the ease of obtaining handguns. The use of other weapons is not as prevalent because their size makes them inherently more difficult to conceal for the purposes of crime. Handgun wounds are more survivable but in relative terms not by much. So, in the real world will banning "assault rifles" stop mass shootings? Not in our lifetime. 100 years from now their availability would be about as prevalent as fully automatic weapons are now which were severely restricted starting about 100 years ago. So, the goal to ban "assault rifles" is because their lethality and purpose is one fully-auto switch away from an M-16. The goal to restrict access to handguns is because of their ease of use in crimes. I also don't get he fascination with the AR-15. They suck at hunting and they're not appreciably better for home defense than a shotgun or handgun (Yes Brenthutch, I know you could tear up a course). I prefer a shotgun because when the first boom goes off everyone knows that's the sound of your flesh turning into hamburger, my friends mostly like handguns. Everyone wants to say that it's an American Right to have that gun, fundamental to upholding the 2nd Ammendment. Ok, so your Grand Dad passed down his AR15 to your Dad and now you have it? Nope, it wasn't even manufactured until the 60's and didn't even become popular until recent decades when it became a political symbol. Up until then everyone felt their 2nd Ammendment was protected just fine and they only owned a collection of rifles, handguns and shotguns.

I'm gonna say the "Flat Earth" thing is another effort to drum up coverage.

It is funny that we keep having to have a conversation about the difference between people who are paid to conduct research and people who are paid to say the research is wrong.

She is certainly a scumbag.

Hopefully Pence's actions don't involved shutting down clinics that would protect against it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/27/mike-pence-hiv-indiana/ And then resorting to prayer instead of solutions: https://www.newsweek.com/mike-pences-pray-it-plan-combat-indiana-hiv-outbreak-resurfaces-after-trump-taps-vp-lead-1489344 And then denying what all medical professionals have known for decades: https://www.newsweek.com/mike-pence-coronavirus-science-hiv-aids-smoking-evolution-climate-change-1489458

I love that. When the point of view glosses over Obi-Wan having cut off Luke's father's legs and left him to die after he slaughtered a ton of children with that lightsaber he said he wanted Luke to have.... https://www.starwars.com/video/a-certain-point-of-view

It's what Greta wanted all along.

Meh, he just said "actual deplorables". I don't think he was trying to launch a defense against the Charlotesville murderer or other deplorables we've listed.

I think you're just trying to destroy more childhoods. HOW DARE YOU!! I wish I could find the comic, but the news headline over a picture of Greta was: "World leaders agree that best way to calm child's anxiety is to change global system of trade and commerce."

I'd like to think that Clinton is aware by experience that any tryst he may engage in will become public knowledge in the most public and damaging ways. I don't think Trump cares but I think we should be fair and remember that we're talking about pedophilia and that is a very different and sick thing than basic accusations of philandering.

So, here we go with another example of the Conservative/Denier/Right Wing people DOING that thing that they accuse "The Left" of doing yet can never prove beyond accusations. Supposedly Greta is a paid puppet under the control of George Soros or Deep State operatives who with the help of the liberal media pull her strings to get her dancing across the stage. Not to be outdone, The Heartland Institute (a guest who needs no introduction) goes out and hires Ms. Naomi Seibt to be their conservative Greta so they can have someone to go dancing across the stage. https://nypost.com/2020/02/25/conservative-group-hires-german-teen-naomi-seibt-to-rival-greta-thunbergs-climate-views/

Yup. Trump and Clinton were the kinds of people who Epstein let use his plane so they would invite him to Trump and Clinton events so he could rub shoulders with the kind of people he made money off of. That's all. They weren't involved in his child rape activities. So far it looks like only Prince Andrew was.