CarolAnn

A couple of shooters including Tarrant both stated they wanted gun control in the USA as that would lead to civil war. Let's be real here inacting gun control could kill millions of Americans and end America as we know it with a civil war. Are all Americans going to happily give up guns? No Will there be a civil war most probably yes. Will many conservative army soldiers support gun control or rally against it? Will the police support it? America is a long cry from 1861. The American standing military would have no difficulty taking down your average bubba-redneck idiot sitting in his handmade bunker under his Confederate battle flag and “The South Will Rise Again” banner. I live in Texas. I know these people. They can take an AR-15 into a WalMart full of unprotected civilians but they will pale when they are staring down a M109 Howitzer. Mass shooters are cowards. Will people resist giving in their guns? Very few people have suggested that gun owners give up their guns and the most reasonable who have only want the assault weapons off the streets. American gun control legislation is generally very middle of the road – the NRA is the agency of hyperbole here. What happens to people living in rural areas many miles from police how do they defend themselves from armed robbers? They will have their guns. See above. However, this argument is logically fallacious as the reason most people who live rurally in the US do so, at least in part, because there is little to no crime. Any gun control will be seen as unconstitutional anyway and thrown out of the courts. The supreme Court if Ginsburg dies will always vote to keep guns for at least 30 years. Again. You are arguing from an extreme position that is driven by the hyperbole of the NRA. If you look at the legislative history in the US concerning gun control – and there are multiple timelines on the internet – will demonstrate that legislation swings a little left in response to a tragedy, then swings a little right to compensate, then settles back in the middle. And there is precious little effective legislation after the 1930s. It takes 15 years for legislation to wend its way through the US courts and enter the Supreme Court. I find it the height of ridiculousness to make decisions based on the makeup of the court. Another truism is that Supreme Court justices are free agents. They tend to vote their intellect and their understanding of the Constitution even though they played most Senators for fools in their confirmation hearings. See Texas v Johnson. Will police be disarmed? If yes then the only one armed are the law breaking criminals and the army. If no then you will still have cops killing civilians. American police will never be disarmed. It's not even an issue worth considering. See reductio ad absurdum. For every mass shooter there's about 5 of these. Gun control just takes the guns for the weak and law abiding citizens. How many below and many more would of turned into murders? In total those saved by guns and those killed in random mass shootings probably balance each other out. Alot are female as well were the feminists at? Actually, find significant instances of armed Americans, even in Texas, who have intervened and taken down a domestic terrorist. There ain't very many. An FBI study in 2014 showed that while five of 160 active shooter situations between 2000 – 2013 had civilians effectively exchanging gunfire with the shooter, 21 were handled by unarmed bystanders. Since 2014, the trend has been more to the ineffectiveness of civilian gun owners, with the exception of Sutherland Springs – but the damage was done by the time that intervention happened. My father was a five time combat veteran and he told me something very interesting. First, the instinct is to flee in self preservation. Second, if that urge is defeated, simply facing someone you know wants your life can send you back to fleeing. Third, if you can push through that, a significant number of people, no matter their rhetoric at the backyard barbecue, simply can not kill even to save their own lives. This, he said, is what American military training is designed to break down. Civilians generally do not have that training. They have a lot of hubris, though, I’ll grant you. If I had a dollar for every time I heard some Texas redneck wannabe talking about what he'd do if he saw a bad guy I'd be lounging in Aruba. As far as women go, according to the FBI, 7.6% of all firearm homicides in the US are committed by women, and since 2000 nine women have committed mass shootings. In addition, they tend to be armed with handguns, not assault rifles, and their targets tend to be people and places with connections to them. That’s a glass ceiling I’ll keep, thank you. Americans will always have guns, but we have got to find a way to effectively drive down the rate of mass shootings. We sacrifice children on the altar of the Second Amendment. This is unacceptable to sane people. Arming every man, woman, and child is not practical nor is it the answer – it didn’t work on the frontier and it is not helping now. All that this has demonstrated is that Congress is firmly in the pocket of the NRA and that assault weapons exist for one reason and one reason alone. The NRA has effectively replaced the concept of “well regulated militia” with the individual, negating the intent of the second amendment while strengthening it, oddly enough. They have mastered the rhetoric. There is no issue that is so dangerous it can’t be talked about, but it requires people of good faith to talk about it in good faith. That’s where we are lacking in Washington right now. That’s why we will continue to die.

I don't do brief. Read it or not. No skin off my nose. The Supreme Court reverses itself. Not often, but it does do so. The issue is the issue, not the precedent, if that makes any sense. Roe v Wade is a bad decision - this is why it has been challenged so much. It's like a weak animal in the middle of a pack of wild dingos. It will be overturned because the law it is rooted in is flawed. If women should be angry at anyone they should be angry at the Burger Court for being the first to bow to political pressure and render a decision that is so easily overturned. The issue will devolve to the states again and no amount of screaming about coat hanger abortions and back alleys is going to stop it. The US is based on English Common Law and that allowed abortion to the point of "quickening," or 14 - 16 weeks. There's the valid argument. Burger didn't use it. It won't matter because it isn't addressed in the Constitution, but there it is. If you want to stick to precedent, we would still be under Plessy v Ferguson, the 3/5s law of the Constitution, legal slavery, no women's suffrage, League of Cities v Usery, Olmstead v United States, Betts v Brady, Baker v Nelson, and a host other really crappy, primarily political and social, decisions made by the court and the Constitutional Convention. You are not concerned with precedent per se. You are concerned with precedent on a specific issue. I understand that and I empathize, but I do not share your conviction that it is the end of the world if Roe v Wade is overturned. As far as the relevance of a primarily British audience being advised to call sitting US Senators? Most Senators have decided what to do or will decide soon after Trump announces his choice on the ninth. They are only going to pay lip service to their actual constituents. Why would you think 1) Senators are going to care a whit about people who can't vote in the US, or 2) anyone overseas is going to care about the US and its never ending self flagellation about abortion? Voting demographics have EVERYTHING to do with this. All the people who will appoint, vet, and approve or disapprove of this choice are elected. If you want things to go your way in Washington you have to put people who also want things your way in Washington. It's that simple. There are a couple of truisms here - Trump will put a conservative judge up for the court, there will be a bloodbath in the Senate Judiciary Committee, McConnell will probably get his vote through by the midterm elections, and then we will see if anyone will pay a political price. My money is on no because the people who vote are getting what they want. There is something to remember about Supreme Court Justices - frequently you don't end up with what you think you are getting. I mean, Scalia wrote in the majority decision for Texas v Johnson. You might want to pull back the idea of constitutional crisis if they Senate doesn't want someone and take a look at the hearings for Robert Bork. They were horrible, but there was no crisis. The Senate made it crystal clear he was unacceptable to them and Kennedy was nominated to take his place. Again, no crisis. The Senate did their job. There were similarities to today, except that Reagan was dealing with a oppositional Senate and a candidate who was tarred by Nixon. Roe v Wade most likely won't be overturned next Court term - there has to be a case to overturn it on and that takes a while - but what there may be out there will be fast tracked through and I would say not this Court term but the next. Anyone who thinks it will survive needs to take a look at my property with an ocean view in Arizona. Good price. Easy terms.

Nothing terrifies me more than fearmongering and melodrama. Women's health is not in deep jeopardy. The federal guarantee to have an abortion is. There's a difference, particularly as only 14.6 out of 1000 women get abortions. You do realize that the majority of people on this forum aren't US citizens, right? This will be a nomination hearing that will make Robert Bork's nomination hearing look like a day at Disneyland, and the stakes are much, much higher than just abortion. Whether people like it or not, this is how this system works. Check and balance. Tenth amendment. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. No President or Congress lasts forever, and it only seems like the Supreme Court does. And yes, I hate it when people say "breaking." It's the single most overused word on the internet right now. This is a deadpooling forum, not the fucking New York Times. Besides, rumor has been swirling for months that he would retire after this term. The Supreme Court has been conservative since 1971 - basically all of my life. Nixon started it by stacking the Court with Rehnquist, Powell, Blackmun, and Burger. The Court still rarely outright reverses itself, particularly with flashpoint issues. It is feasible that the Court may whittle it away and make abortion more difficult to obtain, but it is unlikely to completely ban it - and reversing Roe v Wade would merely punt the issue to the states. This would serve to make California and New York vacation destinations of choice. Roe v Wade was basically a cheater's way of figuring out how to tie abortion to the Constitution so the federal government could have some say without violating the 10th amendment. Linking the issue of abortion to privacy and due process and clearly indicating the the "right" to an abortion was not unlimited and that there was a compelling interest from the state merely set the stage for the years and years and years of idiocy and bullshit we have endured. The trimester framework is clumsy and was later rejected by O'Connor/Souter/Kennedy in favor of undue burden, which isn't much better. It was inevitable that Roe v Wade would face a legitimate challenge, and to be honest I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner. It's time to stop kicking the can down the road. Legally and constitutionally there is a lot wrong with the decision, and Wikipedia has a good analysis of it, but you have to read it without ideological blinders on. There are far more important issues that a conservative Court may decide on ideology. Gerrymandering and voting rights would have far more reaching implications than abortion. Civil rights, particularly with the law enforcement involvement lately, could reverberate far more than abortion. Personally, I'm more interested in preventing people from being killed for being black than I am for fighting for abortion rights, and I am not anti-abortion. Of course, I'm also not pro-abortion. It simply has never been my priority, and for anyone to assume all US women must be either for or against abortion, or are single issue voters, is a bit disingenuous and insulting. You want to change the conservative tide in the United States? Really? Get your words off this forum full of people who have no say in the US system and use them to change this: US Census Bureau Current Population Survey (election trends 1984 - 2016). This graph is a Republican's wet dream. High points are presidential elections, low are midterms. Funny that it's the midterms that really have the most impact on US citizens as individuals but are when they are least likely to get off their asses and vote. As long as that purple line is above 50% and that blue line is below 50% there ain't gonna be any young person getting what they want. They give their power away in the name of apathy and ignorance. The older you get, the more likely you are to vote - and the older you are the more conservative you get. You vote to protect your interests. It's the actual majority of voters who get the grease. Kids have never understood this. We didn't when we were young adults, but the stakes weren't quite as high then. No one in Congress is going to look out for you when you don't vote as a block. The Baby Boomers are going to walk all over all of us. Ironically, they were quite liberal as youngsters.....but not any more. The number of people, mostly young but some middle aged, who have told me they didn't vote in the 2016 presidential election because "I couldn't vote for Bernie" or "Bernie got cheated" blew my mind. I just thanked them for electing Trump - because that's exactly what they did.

You are all overthinking this. Open a thread, watch with amusement as people get overwrought about something that doesn't really matter, wait for someone with a banhammer to decide if it needs to be open. They have the only opinion that matters around here - everyone else is pissing in the wind. In the meantime, go live your real life.

I see nothing above here that qualifies as heat. Carry on....

No. First: Section II, Article 1, Clause 5 of the the United States Constitution: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. Second: 8 United States Code § 1401(g): The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth...a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years Ted Cruz is not a naturalized American citizen. He is the child of an American citizen mother and therefore was born with American citizenship. Tammy Duckworth is the child of an American father. It doesn't matter where they were born - one American citizen parent who meets the very basic and brief residency requirements begets an American citizen unless the child renounces at 18. The currently accepted definition of "natural born" does not include naturalized citizens. The question will most likely have to be decided by Congress as it is a political question, not truly a legal one, and may require amending the Constitution, according to some scholars such as Tokaji of the Michigan Law Review. The conflict over the phrase "natural born" stems from changes between the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795. This Wikipedia article is actually pretty good and has excellent sourcing if one has an urge to waste an afternoon discoursing on American citizenship, how to be born with it, how to get it, how to lose or relinquish it, and what everyone has to say about it. It is worth mentioning that when citizenship has been thrown around it has been to disqualify someone politically, not to resolve any questions of citizenship or to settle case law. Outside of the presidential question, it's also been used to marginalize on the basis of race. It's a nasty weapon used primarily to subjugate and proclaim superiority.

The history of North Korea entering into nuclear disarmament agreements and subsequently violating them goes back to the 1980s. Father, son, and grandson all operate in the same manner. When they need to they appease the west. Later, they use the papers in the toilet. Neither this agreement nor the Panmunjon agreement define denuclearization nor set out a timeline for this to happen. To the west, in this context, it means North Korea unilaterally rids itself of nuclear weaponry and allows the IAEA to inspect to ensure this happens. North Korea has, in the past, demanded bilateral disarmament as a condition, and these two vaguely worded "agreements" don't seem to lend themselves to any other interpretation. What it comes down to is this: What is in it for North Korea? Is the United States likely to "rain fire and fury" down on North Korea? No. What gives Kim what little validity on the world stage? His nuclear arsenal - the only reason is is taken seriously is that he is capable of destroying Seoul. Otherwise he would be just another isolated dictator with no relevance. What's more important to him - world peace or his own position vis-a-vis the United States, Russia, and China? Trump is desperate for a win, Kim gave him one, and it remains to be seen how far Kim is willing to allow this to play out. He has all the cards and all the control. That is the biggest mistake the US made here - in the quest to make Trump look good at home, his people handed the keys to Kim. Ironically, the 75% of Americans who either strenuously hate to mildly dislike Trump are already giving this deal the hairy eyeball. Time Magazine has fired a direct shot across the bow of Trump's presidency. Only Fox News is giving this any good press and even they slipped up and said "...meeting of the two dictators..." As an aside - Trump keeps tweeting that the parents of the Korean War dead are pleading with him to bring back their son's remains. Even if you look at a boy of 18 going to Korea in 1953, the last year of the war, and his parents were 18 when he was born, those parents would be 101. It's seemingly inconsequential lies like this that he consistently gets caught in that causes many people to question everything he does.

She loves her job. Just the fact that she can put that in writing - even on Twitter - tells you all you need to know about her.

That'll be the tour where they are all mummified and moving on strings. Or was that 1974? I lose track.

My goal in life was to always be someone else's.

While reprehensible, hardly treason. It will remove a temporary solution and return the country to the status quo. I admit I'm surprised the administration has decided not to defend the pre-existing condition section of the ACA as that is universally popular, but all that indicates to me is that either Trump has no idea how vulnerable he really is politically or he doesn't care and intends to play the game he's playing until he is inevitably run out on a rail. Either way, reprehensible, but when enough Americans are willing to be sucked into the cult of personality this is what we get.

I want one - I figure it will mow my yard and my dachshund will get some exercise trying to kill it.

While I agree with your position on healthcare vis a vis Congress, etc., how exactly is this treason?

Young people are loudly liberal until they grow up, have kids, get college degrees/professional jobs, and have to pay a mortgage. The Baby Boomers the Millenials are accusing of taking away the future were once flower children putting daisies in the weapons of the National Guard. When your livelihood and your family's house/food/clothing/education are involved, it is suddenly very important how business in the US is being treated, and that is definitely a Republican position. Every President leaves a mark on the country that lasts for generations. The immigration problems we are currently all arguing about? They largely stem from Reagan's handling of communism in Central America in the 1980s. The US went in, unseated a bunch of communist and communist sympathizing leaders, destabilized the entire region and then left. It still hasn't regained the stability that we removed in the name of a red scare that wasn't a threat to us in the slightest. Reagan or any other president are not forgotten - people simply stop associating current problems with past actions. We have short memories and little understanding of cause and effect in politics and government and international relations. Hysteria and posturing about leaving is an overreaction IMO. This republic has survived worse than Trump. You are correct in saying the Republican politicians will eventually stop supporting him, but won't be for any reason other than he has become toxic to them. This is also a constant theme in American government. Until the House Impeachment Committee released a vote to send Articles of Impeachment to the floor of the House and Nixon's approval rating had plummeted after firing Cox, most Republicans stood behind Nixon no matter how bad it got. Nixon also played identity and partisan politics, rode an anti-media line, and got the Southern Democrats (who are now Republicans) on board, even toward the end. Conservative media harped on Watergate as a liberal conspiracy. Jesse Helms used to rail against the New York Times-Washington Post syndicate controlling everything Americans read. Here's a little 200+ year old cause and effect that still reverberates through the United States. An obviously conflicted Thomas Jefferson removed the following from the Declaration of Independence so South Carolina would acquiesce to the Declaration: “Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce.” The following passage is contained in the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 2. Clause 3: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." The first emboldened the southern states to fight for the second. The second cause the US government to be dominated by slave interests until the Civil War. These two clauses probably set the stage for the Civil War, which in turn set the stage for the economic and societal issues we deal with today. Our founding fathers, who everyone holds up and asks "what did they intend?" basically intended this. They set up a country stained from the first step off of Britain's stage - a country founded on the premise that it was acceptable for one man to be another man's property based on the color of skin. Yet the republic survives. History cycles. May you live in interesting times.

There are lawn mowers like those vacuum cleaner robots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotic_lawn_mower