Congratulations! Your video, 1911 - Streets of NYC (speed corrected, added sound), has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 26 Badge!

Your video, 1911 - Streets of NYC (speed corrected, added sound), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I thought Trump was the world's best deal maker, didn't he have a book ghost written for him (because he can't read and write well past the 4th grade level) called the "Art of the Deal"? During the campaign he said again and again how "Only I can... [insert whatever]". None of those things are done that only he could do. It's like he lied... "lies, all lies!" to quote Frau.

They blame Democrats for not joining in, but they weren't even invited to participate in Trumpcare on the Senate side at all... hell, most of the Republicans themselves weren't allowed to participate in the creation. Compare that to the ACA, which had over a year of public debate and had plenty of Republican input and amendments. The Republicans have the number of people to pass anything they could want to pass, but the world's best deal maker, can't make a deal with his own party?

I think this shows more and more how the Republican party needs to split. The divides in the party itself are becoming too great. The problem of course is then they loose control as you split the vote, Fox News and the right wing media would follow the more right wing split, while the Reagan era style Republicans would be sidelined, though maintain a big voting block among less brain washed Republicans.

The party can't even get a simple repeal passed, which they've passed before, of course it was just symbolic then, actually passing a repeal seems harder. They campaigned for years on how they had a better plan, of course they didn't show it, which should have been the first warning they didn't have one, and now they spend all this time trying to come up with something better and still can't pull it off, despite having a clear majority. Of course another warning sign should have been the fact that last break, only 2 of them had enough guts to actually hold town halls, the rest avoided their constitutions...

Unrelated side note: I still say all the Senators and Representatives should stay home, in their home districts. Technology is such that they don't need to all be in Washington at all. Of course I'd also cut their pay then, say to what an entry level soldier (sans hazard pay) would make since it is a service position, not a career, term limit them (12 years House, 12 or 16 years Senate, 8 years President, or 20 years combined total max). And then you make the number of Representatives actually be based on population, we've had 435 Reps since 1911, and the population has grown a lot since then... say one Representative for every 500,000 people, which would give us 646 Representatives, which stay in their home districts. But of course that would rob them of their money, their political careers, and make them more liable to the people they represent, so congress would never make those changes.

Is that the "gun" the kid had and was point / waving? A colt 1911. A great hand gun to have, no orange tip? Where is parental control on this?


video of the incident
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/nov/26/cleveland-video-tamir-rice-shooting-police



It seems to me that since the cops pulled up directly on the kid they had not choice except for self protection.

That being said the cops should not have pulled up that close but close enough to have a stand off and have the kid surrender the weapon.

@Chairman_woo

Well, I wouldn't link minimum pay to highest earners. I would perhaps add a tax penalty based on the income differential. Nor would I go to the extreme of outlawing all but co-operatives/shared ownership. Perhaps a very small tax break for them to encourage that form of business.

I have thought about tying politician pay to the poverty line. Want to be a Representative or Senator, congratulations, you get 2x to 3x the poverty line, and you can have up to 3 staff members at 1.5x the poverty line. No lifetime benefits and of course strict term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court (the President still gets lifetime protection, but no other lifetime benefits and perhaps 5x the poverty line while in office). Nor do they use the Capital building itself but once a year where a lottery decides who gets to go for the State of the Union. The primary idea is to make the number of Representatives we have based on the actual population, rather than shift the 435 that we've had since 1911 around based on state populations. With modern technology, they can stay in their home (computer drawn) districts. I wouldn't make them fully dependent on the state, this is just something somebody does to serve their community for a short time.

So yeah, basically the middle ground.

I was a Libertarian Anrcho-Capitalist after I left the Republican party because I couldn't stand how the Republicans want to legislate morality. Because at the time I was still convinced that sort of economics worked best... over time I realized, after actual vetting sources and looking things over, that the problem was more at the high end than I was led to believe... that and I got a heart just as my evangelical Christianity was about to collapse, mostly due to Republicans and eventually kept off by logic.

Always wanted to see one of the crew walk to the replicator and say "Gun, Colt 1911, One bullet"...



Window seat please.

I guess there's a benefit in teaching someone to use a tool that is capable of killing you. The respect and discipline involved is something of a life lesson, and can be extended to any number of potentially deadly things that we interact with more or less often.

When I was about 12, my dad and I went to a gun range in Florida for the first time, and he put his 1911 .45 in my hands, and showed me how to hold it, how to check if it was loaded, how to load it, and how to shoot it. He showed me how to respect the thing for the destructive life-taker that it is.

"Don't point a gun at anything you don't want to destroy" he said over and over again. I was terrified. I still enjoy shooting guns, even though I don't own any, and don't think I'll ever want one, but I can see the allure.

When you infuse an object with that level of emotional mass... it's like you can feel it in the room with you. The thing becomes more than a tool, it's a little gravity well of destructive power.

That's how I see them anyway. The people who are nonchalant about them scare me though. Stupid kids pointing guns at themselves in facebook cover photos. These people are the reason we can't have nice things.

You'll never convince the smaller states to get rid of the EC. But it can be somewhat fixed:

* Replace the first past the post with an alternative vote (see one of his other videos)
* Replace the winner take all in every state. The winner of each congressional district gets that district's vote, then the last two votes go to the winner of the state overall. This is perhaps one of the most important changes as it makes it as close to the popular vote as you can get without getting rid of the EC, which as I said, I don't think you'll get enough states to agree to.
* District lines should be drawn by open source software to help eliminate gerrymandering.
* Strict term limits (on both houses and the Supreme Court) and no life-time benefits for any of them that isn't given to every citizen, and every law that applies to citizens applies to them (so no more insider trading being legal for them).

Those few changes alone make it easier to be represented and increases the chance of 3rd parties getting some votes.

I would extend it further with one more important change. We have had 435 Representatives since 1911. It hasn't kept pace with the population growth. With modern technology there is no need for everyone to be in DC. Rather than adjusting those 435 people based on the population of the states, we should go back to the original system of having a Rep for X many people. Perhaps one Rep for every 50,000 or 100,000 people (no less than one for every 250,000). With everyone in their home districts and so many of them it makes it hard to buy them all. With so many Reps it probably means a pay cut, which they should have anyhow, especially getting rid of the life time privileges it comes with now... I would also kill the ability to add amendments to bills that aren't super tightly integrated to the bill, if you can't get your legislation passed without it being hidden as part of another bill, then it shouldn't be passed. Perhaps a lime-item veto of amendments and riders for all members of congress and the President. I say make pay based on the poverty rate and adjust for cost of living in each district... perhaps 2x the poverty rate, that would encourage them to fix poverty (and while we are at it rather than set some random number like $250,000 as a high tax bracket, tax brackets are broken by multiples of the poverty rate as well, so 10x the poverty rate puts you in the same bracket as $250k does today).

thanks for lifting this one out of my pq!:)
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*promote

I noticed you put your dual barrel 1911 video in metal. metal is not for actual "metal" it is for metal MUSIC -

" For all things metal, including sub-genres, can be found in metal sift.

No rock and roll. No soft rock, or rock of any kind.

Gothic, Doom, Heavy, Thrash, Speed, Death, Black, New, Post,Industrial, Symphonic, Operatic, Power, Viking, Folk, Extreme, Viking,MetalCore and many others can all find a home here.


Now stop reading this, and mosh. "


yea its pretty stupid of a channel name, It depicts actual METAL not metal music.... But I wanted to let you know so you can "Modify details" under the title and change the channel assignments yourself.

** edit- let me express that again, IT IS A COMPLETELY STUPID CHANNEL ANNOTATION THAT DEPICTS WHAT THIS CHANNEL IS ABOUT... Jackass'

Thank you!
In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote

I think this video needs coupled with his The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained.

I don't know if we can ever get a constitutional amendment passed to get rid of the electoral college, which is why I've long advocated just getting rid of the winner take all in every state. Whoever wins the congressional district, gets that district's electoral vote, with the two extras going to the winner of the popular vote of the state as a whole.

If we combined that with the Singe Transferable Vote type system explained in the Problems with First Past the Post video, we would have a system that better represents the people.

We still have an issue then with the large states being under represented and small states and DC being over represented, and he doesn't go into detail on why that is in these videos. We have had 435 Representatives since 1911 (save for a couple years where we had 437). The 1910 US Census said we had 76,212,168 people, so with 435 Representatives that gives us 175,200 people for each Representative, so we'll round that up to 200,000. The 2010 Census pegged us at 308,745,538, so each Representative now represents a bit over 709,750 people. If we kept with the 200,000 figure we would have 1543 Representatives now, and with modern technology there is no reason they would all need to be in the Congressional building for votes, just in their office in their home district. Heck even if we raised it to 250,000 people, a full quarter of a million, we 1234 or 1235 Representatives, which still insures people are better represented in Congress and at the electoral college if that is still in place once we fix First Past the Post and up the number or Representatives. Congress itself set the limit to 435, so it wouldn't take an amendment to fix it, unless we wanted to insure that it was fixed forever. I don't think we would need an amendment to move to the Single Transferable Vote either, just a law stating all Federal offices must use that method.

Of course to afford that many Representative they, and the Senate, probably need a pay and budget cut. So good luck on that, which may be reason enough it would never pass... that and the lobbyist trying to stop it since such a move would make their job harder and far more expensive.

We do need an amendment limiting the term of the Supreme Court, especially since they are appointed and not elected, and a term limit would be needed even if they were elected. An amendment that specifically exempts anyone who is in now and perhaps appointed within a few years of passing should be passable I would think (if they could agree on what the limit should be), then again, they haven't made a real effort to limit the Supreme Court term yet.

The primary system needs fixed as well, but I think that would be harder to fix. Even with a Single Transferable Vote in place, if it isn't party locked, you have people from the other party purposely voting for the person who would most likely lose against their candidate. Even party locked, you still have people saying they are one, voting for the person you best guess will lose, and then voting for your real candidate during the actual election (which should never be party locked). However, a single Transferable Vote does make "fringe" candidates that don't get the mainstream press coverage, like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and the like, to raise higher, which is probably why the parties themselves would fight any real primary system reform.

Based on other videos in this series, we know where he is heading, removing the first past the post vote system. I agree that is needed. However, as the US doesn't have a parliamentary system we have a couple of other issues to address.
First is that we've had 435 Reps since 1911 (save for a couple years where it went to 437). We had a tad over 92 Million people here in 1911, or one Rep per a bit over 200,000 people. The population is now over 298 Million, or one Rep per 680,000 people. If we went back to just the 1911 ratio we would have 1,400 Reps today, and the US population gets better representation, especially if tied with one of the alternative vote systems he's talked about already (or the one he hasn't gone into detail about yet, which I guess is coming up soon). That would require a pay cut for being a Rep, and most Reps would have to stay in their home district and cast their vote via Skype or something like that. However, I doubt that would ever happen. It would make it harder for Reps to be purchased the way they are now, and they like being paid to screw us over.
Next, even with a greatly increased number of Reps, you wouldn't get enough small states to agree to remove the Electoral College and the problems that comes with, which forces us to take another method to handle that, and it is simply remove the winner take all. Each Representative district keeps its electoral vote, and that vote has to go to whomever won the popular vote for that district alone. So states like Florida, Ohio and the like would have their electoral votes split many ways. The two electoral votes go the the overall winner of the state, unless the percentage is close enough (and what defines close enough I don't know, perhaps under 40/60? but that would be for Congress to find an agreement on) to warrant splitting those last two electoral votes. This essentially gives a popular vote while keeping the electoral college intact, though on rare occasions one could still win the popular vote and loose the electoral vote, but it would be closer. It also means that you no longer just have to win a few key areas of a few key states, but you really have to try and win over much larger areas, and third party candidates may take an electoral vote or two. This only changes the outcome of the Presidential election, and I think this one could be pushed through...
Of course getting rid of First Past the Post should perhaps be priority one, but I think the two parties are too entrenched in the US to allow it to happen, and the American public too brain dead to know there are alternative methods out there, or how to use them if they came... considering how many got confused by the butterfly ballot... a ballot where you write numbers down may be a bit much. <sigh>

Crackaz please. His subtext isn't, "Black people can't take away someone's rights because only white people can do that." I do believe it's, "Black people should know better than to take away someone's rights because they were persecuted and had their rights taken at one point."

A bit of an improvement, but he's collectivizing the race a bit. A 1911s black man in America isn't the same as a 2011 black man in America.

Be sure to visit YouTube.com and watch their videos with their 1911 icon.