Americans and Their Guns

[unicorn]

3 hours ago, jimmie50 said:

... The fact that the justices are nominated by a politician (president) and approved by another group of politicians (senators) seems to have escaped their thinking completely?!?  It simply boggles the mind...

One has to understand that the US Constitution (including its bill of rights) was written in the 18th Century, when not just the US, but the entire world, was a very different place. Direct democracy was a new idea. There are many horrid aspects to the Constitution, including the Electoral College, the non-democratic Senate, and the virtual impossibility to hold the US President accountable under the law (especially under the current hard-and-fast political party system). I don't think anyone at the time imagined the likes of Trump. The one saving grace is that while Trump has appointed a plurality of the US Supreme Court justices, they are not beholden to him, and he cannot fire them once confirmed. Trump can even, in effect, fire Republican members of Congress by labeling them traitors--and he has done so multiple times. We live under a reign of terror with both Congress and the Presidency under Trump's control, and the mostly Republican-appointed SCOTUS putting few brakes onto his insane policies. We can only hope that at least the SCOTUS is not physically afraid of him--though I have a feeling he can figure out ways to put the squeeze even on them. We simply have to survive this reign of terror until his term is up or until he dies, whichever comes first. I never thought this could happen in the US, but I was wrong. 

[jimmie50]

19 minutes ago, unicorn said:

I never thought this could happen in the US, but I was wrong. 

Agreed.  It is appalling.  And I don't understand the lack of backbone and unwillingness of Republican elected officials to stand up to him.  It just blows my mind.   

[PeterRS]

14 hours ago, kokopelli3 said:

1) The USA is a large country, about the 3rd or 4th largest in the world thus there is little need  to travel to other countries for tourism purposes.

2) about 50% of Americans do have a Passport, which, people wise,  that is 170 million Passports in circulation, and increasing annually,  which I  believe to be the highest in the world.

3) Plus many people in USA have little incentive to travel abroad for whatever reason. As for knowledge of the countries, their peoples, their societies , etc, that all depends on their level of education, ethnic identity,  and interests. etc.  Kind of like the situation here in Thailand!  555

The points in your reply which I have marked 1) and 3) only go to prove my point. The majority of those in the USA have "little need to travel." So if there is little need, how is it they find out about other countries, their histories, societies, different forms of governing etc.? Seond or third hand from their local media!

As for #2, the fact is that a vast percentage of the new passports being applied for and given out in the USA are for millennials - i.e. the young. In 1994 only 10% of Americans held passports as noted in the BBC article below. So if it is the young Americas who are now travelling, older Americans who prefer to travel within their own country still have little idea what really goes on in the world.

The world's nations with the highest percentage of passports and the easiest access for visa-free travel to most countries can be found in Asia. Singapore, Japan, and South Korea head the list, with many European countries not far behind. US passports do not provide as much visa free travel for the simple reason that 20 or more countries require visas obtained in advance of travel. In the Henley Passport index, the USA comes in at #36 after countries like Croatia, Estonia and Slovenia!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42586638

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henley_Passport_Index

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

I never thought this could happen in the US, but I was wrong. 

An excellent and excellently brief analysis. Just one question. It would seem that the USA has rather drifted into the present quagmire over very many decades, if not a century or two. It also appears to some outsiders, of which I am one, that  power and money are at the root of the problems. And since it seems power has always throughout that time been a factor that could be purchased, do you think the influence of the mega-rich ever be diminished?

It is interesting to compare the USA with its former colonisers in the UK. The UK has very strict limits on spending in elections, even though the first-past-the-post constituency system to my thinking is inherently anti-democratic and on occasion open to corruption. But there is at least a greater degree of morality in the understanding of public trust. Just yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister of the ruling Labour Party, a lady who rose from working class origins to become virtually the most powerful woman in the land, resigned. A mother of three, one of her children was born prematurely, is blind and has special eucational needs. She resigned because she had been found guilty by the Party's Ethics Advisor that she had broken the ministerial code of Conduct. That breach concerned her failure to pay the correct amount of tax on a second home. She had paid £40,000 but it should have been £80,000.

Would any politician of any rank in the USA resign over an underpayment of US$54,000? I somehow doubt it!

 

[unicorn]

17 hours ago, PeterRS said:

...

Would any politician of any rank in the USA resign over an underpayment of US$54,000? I somehow doubt it!

 

Not only have there been such resignations, but also criminal prosecutions. Prior to living in Los Angeles, I lived in the county of Contra Costa, near Oakland, California. One of the county supervisors (the lawmakers for county laws) was found to have asked her government staff to do some work for her campaign. Not only was she removed from the Board of Supervisors, but she was also fined and imprisoned for a fairly substantial period of time (I seem to recall about 2-3 years). Law enforcement has even created stings to catch dishonest politicians, including the infamous Abscam sting operation, which put quite a few members of the US Congress in prison for years. Of course, at least on the federal level, Trump has allowed any violation of federal law to be ignored with impunity, as long as the violator has actively supported him, or donated a sufficient quantity to his campaign. 

Once again, the 18th Century framers of the Constitution never imagined the public would vote in such a charlatan as POTUS. This happened due to the SCOTUS "Citizens United" ruling, which forbade limits to campaign contributions, as well as the advent of social media, which allowed fabrications to dominate over investigative reporting and scientific fact. Especially under Trump, Republicans have waged an all-out war against truthfulness and science. It definitely wouldn't surprise me if Trump pardoned Ghilesne Maxwell in exchange for her lying about Trump not being on Epstein's list. Indeed, there is a mysterious hole in the surveillance video around the time of Epstein's death, which was ruled a suicide, but I strongly suspect was murder. 

As for the British politician who defrauded the government of $54,000, was she sentenced to a prison term? I'd certainly hope so. One can question those who rise out of nowhere to power. Many, like Trump, are simply adept scam artists. 

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, unicorn said:

... Not only was she removed from the Board of Supervisors, but she was also fined and imprisoned for a fairly substantial period of time (I seem to recall about 2-3 years)....

My recollection is pretty good, considering this was a quarter of a century ago:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/page-one-former-contra-costa-supervisor-gets-3012878.php

"Stoic and steadfastly denying any guilt, former Contra Costa Supervisor Gayle Bishop was sentenced yesterday to three years in prison for perjury and misappropriation of county funds... Former staff members aided in her conviction, testifying at trial for the prosecution that Bishop ordered them to perform work for her private law practice and her re-election campaign and to cover up traces of misconduct... Burak estimated that Bishop's actions cost the county at most "a few hundred dollars."...".

Although it looks as though her sentence was reduced after an order from the Court of Appeals:

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/bishop-gets-6-months-in-jail-and-probation-2962593.php

"Holding a packed courtroom in tight suspense to the end, a judge made a surprise show of leniency yesterday to former Contra Costa Supervisor Gayle Bishop by not sentencing her to state prison. Instead, Bishop, 61, will be required to serve a six-month county jail term for her seven felony convictions on misuse of public office and lying to a grand jury. The same judge, John Tiernan, sentenced her earlier to three years behind bars, but two of her convictions were later overturned on appeal. She is scheduled to surrender to authorities on Feb. 12, serve 30 days in custody and then will probably complete the sentence under home detention, Tiernan said...".

Obviously, the ultimate sentence didn't make as big a headline as the original sentence.

[PeterRS]

5 hours ago, unicorn said:

Not only have there been such resignations, but also criminal prosecutions. Prior to living in Los Angeles, I lived in the county of Contra Costa, near Oakland, California. One of the county supervisors (the lawmakers for county laws) was found to have asked her government staff to do some work for her campaign. Not only was she removed from the Board of Supervisors, but she was also fined and imprisoned for a fairly substantial period of time (I seem to recall about 2-3 years).

I regret your recollection is not so good and your earlier post absolutely does not compare anything like with like! You refer to the case of one Gayle Bishop. The two cases are completely different! Ms. Bishop lied to a Grand Jury. She had attempted to cover up her felony under oath. She perjured herself. I understand in the USA that is a crime punishible by up to five years in prison. Ms. Bishop was also found guilty of using her staff to run her law practice as well as her campaign for re-election. The judge was also concerned that Ms. Bishop showed no remorse and refused to take responsibility for her actions. 

The Rayner case is totaly different and invoves a second house which had in fact been sold to a trust to benefit Ms. Raynor's special needs child. Ms. Raynor had taken legal advice. She never lied and always admitted her underpayment. And you are wrong. You stated Ms. Bishop went to prison for "between 2 - 3 years"! She spent all of 19 days in jail.

There is absolutely zero reason for Angela Rayner to spend any time in jail. She owned up to an error and has paid a hefy price for it. Senior US politicians rarely do that unless actually caught comitting one of several crimes. Even then, many remain in office. The Nixon Presidency was a den of thieves going right up to the Vice President Spiro Agnew. In President Reagan's administration the Attorney General Elliot Abrams, Michael Deaver, Melvyn Paisley, Victor Cohen, James Gaines and others were all convicted and found guilty of crimes for which several spent well over one year in jail. Under George Bush 1, among the guilty were the Treasurer of the USA who pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and tax evasion. Under every President since there have been allegations against Congressmen and Senators who remained in their posts before prosecutions and jail time for various crimes. Need one mention George Santos?

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, PeterRS said:

... Under every President since there have been allegations against Congressmen and Senators who remained in their posts before prosecutions and jail time for various crimes. Need one mention George Santos?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/disgraced-former-rep-george-santos-begin-seven-year-prison-sentence-rcna221069

In the US at least, the law considers a person innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. As for George Santos, he's serving a 7-year sentence in federal prison. 

"Disgraced former Rep. George Santos reported to prison on Friday, beginning a more than seven-year sentence after pleading guilty to a laundry list of federal charges that included wire fraud, identity theft and money laundering. He is in custody at the Federal Correctional Institution Fairton in Fairton, New Jersey, the Federal Bureau of Prisons confirmed Friday.... On Dec. 1, 2023, the House voted 311-114 to expel Santos, making him just the sixth person in U.S. history to be expelled from the House of Representatives. After his guilty plea, Santos was sentenced to 87 months behind bars this past April and ordered to pay almost $374,000 in restitution and over $200,000 in forfeiture...".

[Keithambrose]

3 hours ago, unicorn said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/disgraced-former-rep-george-santos-begin-seven-year-prison-sentence-rcna221069

In the US at least, the law considers a person innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. As for George Santos, he's serving a 7-year sentence in federal prison. 

"Disgraced former Rep. George Santos reported to prison on Friday, beginning a more than seven-year sentence after pleading guilty to a laundry list of federal charges that included wire fraud, identity theft and money laundering. He is in custody at the Federal Correctional Institution Fairton in Fairton, New Jersey, the Federal Bureau of Prisons confirmed Friday.... On Dec. 1, 2023, the House voted 311-114 to expel Santos, making him just the sixth person in U.S. history to be expelled from the House of Representatives. After his guilty plea, Santos was sentenced to 87 months behind bars this past April and ordered to pay almost $374,000 in restitution and over $200,000 in forfeiture...".

Interesting  that 114 lawmakers voted to keep him in office!

[unicorn]

8 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

Interesting  that 114 lawmakers voted to keep him in office!

All Republicans, I can assure you. He will probably still be a menace to society when he gets out.