Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

[GannonFan]

Isn't there a stock fund that literally mirrors whatever investing strategy her husband uses? It's the closest that regular folks can get to the ultimate insider trading game that is the US Congress.

[BDKJMU]

A mass shooting you'll hear very little about.

Chief: 3 dead in Indiana mall shooting; witness kills gunman

Police say three people were fatally shot and two were injured at an Indiana mall after a man with a rifle opened fire in a food court and an armed civilian shot and killed him

GREENWOOD, Ind. -- Three people were fatally shot and two were injured Sunday evening at an Indiana mall after a man with a rifle opened fire in a food court and an armed civilian shot and killed him, police said.

The man entered the Greenwood Park Mall with a rifle and several magazines of ammunition and began firing in the food court, Greenwood Police Department Chief Jim Ison said.

A 22-year-old from nearby Bartholomew County who was legally carrying a firearm at the mall shot and killed the gunman, Ison said at a news conference.

No, it just takes 1 good samaritan citizen with a CCW..

[Skjellyfetti]

Those tweets are about arming teachers.

Good on that guy, but not convinced arming teachers is the answer for school shootings.

[AZGrizFan]

Those tweets are about arming teachers.

Good on that guy, but not convinced arming teachers is the answer for school shootings.

Armed teachers should be the last line of defense in a multi pronged safety approach that most districts seem unwilling to implement.

[kalm]

Those tweets are about arming teachers.

Good on that guy, but not convinced arming teachers is the answer for school shootings.

Armed teachers should be the last line of defense in a multi pronged safety approach that most districts seem unwilling to implement.

This. They shoukd have to go through 400 LE personnel before they ever face an armed teacher.

[kalm]

What?

Manchin is a free-thinking individual, willing to buck the party to do what he thinks is right and/or to protect his contributors and constituents. If he isn't a Democrat then it's because the party left him, he didn't leave the party.

Cheney is a neo-con. You could also make the argument that she didn't leave the Republican Party, that it left her. It's now more populist, considerably less civil and less interested in foreign interventions.

Maybe I’ve been too tough on Manchin.



https://theintercept.com/2022/07/18/joe ... an-valley/

[BDKJMU]

Manchin is a free-thinking individual, willing to buck the party to do what he thinks is right and/or to protect his contributors and constituents. If he isn't a Democrat then it's because the party left him, he didn't leave the party.

Cheney is a neo-con. You could also make the argument that she didn't leave the Republican Party, that it left her. It's now more populist, considerably less civil and less interested in foreign interventions.

Maybe I’ve been too tough on Manchin.



https://theintercept.com/2022/07/18/joe ... an-valley/

Only 15 million for 2 two huge tracts of fed land, one them within ginormous Monagahela National Forest (900k acres). That’s what you’re going to crticize Manchin on?

[Skjellyfetti]

He's a free thinker protecting his constituents.

[Baldy]

He's a free thinker protecting his constituents.

If that money went to federal lands in WV instead of lining his pockets, then that's a pretty good deal for his state.

[GannonFan]

Maybe I’ve been too tough on Manchin.



https://theintercept.com/2022/07/18/joe ... an-valley/

Only 15 million for 2 two huge tracts of fed land, one them within ginormous Monagahela National Forest (900k acres). That’s what you’re going to crticize Manchin on?

There's some real pretty land in West Virginia. That New River Gorge National Park is fantastic.

So, we're going to blast Manchin for not doing enough for the environment by posting links about how he is earmarking money to preserve the environment in his state. Lovely.

[kalm]

Only 15 million for 2 two huge tracts of fed land, one them within ginormous Monagahela National Forest (900k acres). That’s what you’re going to crticize Manchin on?

There's some real pretty land in West Virginia. That New River Gorge National Park is fantastic.

So, we're going to blast Manchin for not doing enough for the environment by posting links about how he is earmarking money to preserve the environment in his state. Lovely.

I guess he can check the pro-environment box then. Without any hypocrisy either.

[GannonFan]

There's some real pretty land in West Virginia. That New River Gorge National Park is fantastic.

So, we're going to blast Manchin for not doing enough for the environment by posting links about how he is earmarking money to preserve the environment in his state. Lovely.

I guess he can check the pro-environment box then. Without any hypocrisy either.

Maybe he was for the environment before he was against it? Maybe he's just evolving on the issue?

[Baldy]

I guess he can check the pro-environment box then. Without any hypocrisy either.

Maybe he was for the environment before he was against it? Maybe he's just evolving on the issue?

...or unlike most Donks, he smart enough to know that climate change policy like this is nothing more than virtue signaling. All it will do is force us to paint ourselves into a box crippling us economically.

As long as China and India continue to spew carbon emissions into the atmosphere at the rate they're going, anything we do is just pissin' into the wind.

[GannonFan]

Maybe he was for the environment before he was against it? Maybe he's just evolving on the issue?

...or unlike most Donks, he smart enough to know that climate change policy like this is nothing more than virtue signaling. All it will do is force us to paint ourselves into a box crippling us economically.

As long as China and India continue to spew carbon emissions into the atmosphere at the rate they're going, anything we do is just pissin' into the wind.

I don't have anything against climate change policy that eventually gets us to a better place in terms of reduced emissions, and even if other countries like China and India do not follow suit. I agree, in the end, the planet and us will have to bear the burden of that, but it's still a worthy goal we should pursue and it's a goal we should adopt even if others don't. It's the right thing to do and I'm fine with us being an example for others to emulate.

What I do have a problem with is government adopting timelines rather than allowing the details and the science to progress to get to those goals. Nothing wrong with a stick and a carrot approach, but the one we've been on has been on the unreasonable side of things. Part of Biden's disastrous time as President so far has been due to jumping too early from the fossil fuels (and regardless of what's presented, he made that a goal from day one and his actions have certainly played a huge part in the inflationary consequences of those moves) without the next step (non-fossil fuel energy) being ready to step into the resulting void. There's a lot of unnecessary economic and social pain that could certainly be avoided with better planning and execution at the government side of things with regards to shifting energy in this country. And of course, nuclear has been sitting there for decades providing exactly that bridge.

[UNI88]

...or unlike most Donks, he smart enough to know that climate change policy like this is nothing more than virtue signaling. All it will do is force us to paint ourselves into a box crippling us economically.

As long as China and India continue to spew carbon emissions into the atmosphere at the rate they're going, anything we do is just pissin' into the wind.

I don't have anything against climate change policy that eventually gets us to a better place in terms of reduced emissions, and even if other countries like China and India do not follow suit. I agree, in the end, the planet and us will have to bear the burden of that, but it's still a worthy goal we should pursue and it's a goal we should adopt even if others don't. It's the right thing to do and I'm fine with us being an example for others to emulate.

What I do have a problem with is government adopting timelines rather than allowing the details and the science to progress to get to those goals. Nothing wrong with a stick and a carrot approach, but the one we've been on has been on the unreasonable side of things. Part of Biden's disastrous time as President so far has been due to jumping too early from the fossil fuels (and regardless of what's presented, he made that a goal from day one and his actions have certainly played a huge part in the inflationary consequences of those moves) without the next step (non-fossil fuel energy) being ready to step into the resulting void. There's a lot of unnecessary economic and social pain that could certainly be avoided with better planning and execution at the government side of things with regards to shifting energy in this country. And of course, nuclear has been sitting there for decades providing exactly that bridge.

[UNI88]

Joe Rogan calls Trump an 'existential threat to democracy' and a 'man baby' on drugs

"He's on Adderall!" Rogan said. "Do you think he's on Adderall?"
...
"He's a man baby," Rogan said, laughing.

"He's a fucking toddler. He's a toddler, that's exactly how I talk to my kids about shit," Segura said.
...
"If he weren't an existential threat to democracy and the power that he wields over his minions wasn't just so disturbing, it'd be hilarious.

Ouch, but oh so true.

[kalm]

Seems reasonable.

[GannonFan]

Seems reasonable.

And policies such as that are why the UK is even worse off than the US and what caused the sitting PM to be forced to resign. So sure, let's decide that some industries have too much money and let's just write policy to take whatever money we think seems good to take. How could that ever go wrong?

That's the problem with "windfall profits" - there's no clear definition. How much profit is too much profit? In some industries, 1%-3% gross margin is good. In other industries, you don't do anything under 50% gross margin. Is one bad and the other good? How do we make that determination, as elected government legislators, on how much profit any one company should make in any one particular industry? We flubbed the whole "essential business" thing at the start of the pandemic and that was just which businesses should be open or not. I don't have faith that central planning would be able to not screw up a windfall profit thing from industry to industry. IMO, anyone who even suggests windfall profits as good legislative action is someone I automatically realize knows pretty little about the economy and how businesses function.

[kalm]

Seems reasonable.

And policies such as that are why the UK is even worse off than the US and what caused the sitting PM to be forced to resign. So sure, let's decide that some industries have too much money and let's just write policy to take whatever money we think seems good to take. How could that ever go wrong?

That's the problem with "windfall profits" - there's no clear definition. How much profit is too much profit? In some industries, 1%-3% gross margin is good. In other industries, you don't do anything under 50% gross margin. Is one bad and the other good? How do we make that determination, as elected government legislators, on how much profit any one company should make in any one particular industry? We flubbed the whole "essential business" thing at the start of the pandemic and that was just which businesses should be open or not. I don't have faith that central planning would be able to not screw up a windfall profit thing from industry to industry. IMO, anyone who even suggests windfall profits as good legislative action is someone I automatically realize knows pretty little about the economy and how businesses function.

When your net profits make it difficult for your working class to afford your essential product.

[BDKJMU]

A mass shooting you'll hear very little about.

Chief: 3 dead in Indiana mall shooting; witness kills gunman

Police say three people were fatally shot and two were injured at an Indiana mall after a man with a rifle opened fire in a food court and an armed civilian shot and killed him

GREENWOOD, Ind. -- Three people were fatally shot and two were injured Sunday evening at an Indiana mall after a man with a rifle opened fire in a food court and an armed civilian shot and killed him, police said.

The man entered the Greenwood Park Mall with a rifle and several magazines of ammunition and began firing in the food court, Greenwood Police Department Chief Jim Ison said.

A 22-year-old from nearby Bartholomew County who was legally carrying a firearm at the mall shot and killed the gunman, Ison said at a news conference.

Between Uvalde and this, more evidence that you can't rely on the police to save you, we need more armed good samaritans, and "Gun Free Zones" = more lives lost. Apparently this mall was a "gun free" zone. Thank goodness the good samaritan ignored that. With military or tactical training he took out the shooter "from a distance" within 15 seconds of the shooter opening fire, despite being vastly outgunned. As impressive as Rittenhouse.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/19/indiana-m ... -shooting/
And the MSM has mostly ignored this story after the 1st day, with the left getting their knickers in a bunch over the guy being labeled a "good samaritan" because he ignored the mall's "gun free zone" policy and killed a mass shooter.

[GannonFan]

And policies such as that are why the UK is even worse off than the US and what caused the sitting PM to be forced to resign. So sure, let's decide that some industries have too much money and let's just write policy to take whatever money we think seems good to take. How could that ever go wrong?

That's the problem with "windfall profits" - there's no clear definition. How much profit is too much profit? In some industries, 1%-3% gross margin is good. In other industries, you don't do anything under 50% gross margin. Is one bad and the other good? How do we make that determination, as elected government legislators, on how much profit any one company should make in any one particular industry? We flubbed the whole "essential business" thing at the start of the pandemic and that was just which businesses should be open or not. I don't have faith that central planning would be able to not screw up a windfall profit thing from industry to industry. IMO, anyone who even suggests windfall profits as good legislative action is someone I automatically realize knows pretty little about the economy and how businesses function.

When your net profits make it difficult for your working class to afford your essential product.

Oh, so now we're going to make it a government thing to label products we consider "essential"? I'm sure that won't go poorly. And besides, inflation has been pretty much broad across the economy at this point. Food is up, energy is up, gas is up, housing is up, the price of cell phones and computers are up (they're essential, no?). Heck, streaming services have raised their costs too. Does the working class not get to watch Netflix anymore? Again, you suggest going down a path that would be impossible to setup, impossible to peg what's essential and impossible where the cost triggers should go, and would basically be akin to nationalizing multiple industries and hundreds of businesses with no real good way to go about it or to reverse it. I get that you like to be a provocateur on these boards, but sometimes I don't think you put a lot of thought into your more flippant ideas.

Oh, and in this case (gas and oil), you seem to make the argument that they have raised their costs too far. First of all, what is too far (I know, you don't know, but just throwing it out again) and second, that completely ignores the fact that excessive government spending, coupled with federal banks being incredibly slow to reverse their easy money approach, have been the two leading factors, by far, in the runaway inflation that we've been suffering under that has resulted in the working class having a hard time affording what they need. And it didn't help that the current administration decided to cut the cord on the fossil fuel industry, on day one mind you, without having plan B up and ready to go. But hey, you don't get to the historically low approval ratings we're at now without some real Buchanan/Carter-like effort.

[BDKJMU]

Did in 15 seconds what 300+ LEOs couldn't do in 77 mins.

No military or law enforcement training, from approximately 30 yards, with a handgun, fired 10 rounds, hit suspect 8x.

Dicken saw him and his rifle from 40 yards away and immediately understood what was happening. The shooter shot and killed three people. He injured two. The initial police report was that it took Dicken two minutes to respond to the shooter. But that wasn’t true. The police just corrected that. Dicken neutralized the shooter within 15 seconds of him starting to shoot, an astounding reaction, doubtless saving countless other lives.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/07 ... ng-n598228

[Baldy]

A mass shooting you'll hear very little about.

Chief: 3 dead in Indiana mall shooting; witness kills gunman

Between Uvalde and this, more evidence that you can't rely on the police to save you, we need more armed good samaritans, and "Gun Free Zones" = more lives lost. Apparently this mall was a "gun free" zone. Thank goodness the good samaritan ignored that. With military or tactical training he took out the shooter "from a distance" within 15 seconds of the shooter opening fire, despite being vastly outgunned. As impressive as Rittenhouse.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/19/indiana-m ... -shooting/
And the MSM has mostly ignored this story after the 1st day, with the left getting their knickers in a bunch over the guy being labeled a "good samaritan" because he ignored the mall's "gun free zone" policy and killed a mass shooter.

Reading some of their comments after, they sounded almost upset that the shooter didn't kill more people.

[UNI88]

Between Uvalde and this, more evidence that you can't rely on the police to save you, we need more armed good samaritans, and "Gun Free Zones" = more lives lost. Apparently this mall was a "gun free" zone. Thank goodness the good samaritan ignored that. With military or tactical training he took out the shooter "from a distance" within 15 seconds of the shooter opening fire, despite being vastly outgunned. As impressive as Rittenhouse.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/19/indiana-m ... -shooting/
And the MSM has mostly ignored this story after the 1st day, with the left getting their knickers in a bunch over the guy being labeled a "good samaritan" because he ignored the mall's "gun free zone" policy and killed a mass shooter.

Reading some of their comments after, they sounded almost upset that the shooter didn't kill more people.

I'm glad he was there and able to save lives.

He's proof that armed civilians can be a force for good but I doubt that the majority of armed civilians would be as cool-headed and quick to react as he was.

[kalm]

Reading some of their comments after, they sounded almost upset that the shooter didn't kill more people.

I'm glad he was there and able to save lives.

He's proof that armed civilians can be a force for good but I doubt that the majority of armed civilians would be as cool-headed and quick to react as he was.

Meanwhile another mass shooting occurred the day after, and the day after, and the day after. I’m not sure deputizing an entire country would be a net gain.