[OFF TOPIC] Politics Thread

[Monzanator 4,503]

Obviously nobody can win political elections without leaks, illegal wirings and hacked email accounts anymore. Man, Watergate seems like kindergarten amateur hour compared to modern tactics

[Olympian1010 7,976]

18 minutes ago, Monzanator said:

Obviously nobody can win political elections without leaks, illegal wirings and hacked email accounts anymore. Man, Watergate seems like kindergarten amateur hour compared to modern tactics

Truthfully, this will absolutely have no role in the election. There’s already been much worse 

[thiago_simoes 1,423]

1 hour ago, Monzanator said:

Obviously nobody can win political elections without leaks, illegal wirings and hacked email accounts anymore. Man, Watergate seems like kindergarten amateur hour compared to modern tactics

 

Truly a consequence of a post-modern world. The latest scoop or scandal about celebrities is more important than discussing politics for some people, so politics now is about creating scandals for celeb-politicians. It's funny that sociologist Anthony Giddens spent years defending a new form of making politics, and now we have a truly new form but I'm pretty sure this is exactly the opposite of what Giddens wanted.

[Olympian1010 7,976]

Our Supreme Court has ruled that the family of kids killed in the Sandy Hook Shooting can sue Remington (the gun company) for their role in the shooting. It’s a huge win the anti-gun lobby.

 

Also, the public impeachment hearings start tomorrow, so can’t wait for the next few weeks of that circus.

[heywoodu 15,141]

33 minutes ago, Olympian1010 said:

Our Supreme Court has ruled that the family of kids killed in the Sandy Hook Shooting can sue Remington (the gun company) for their role in the shooting. It’s a huge win the anti-gun lobby.

I'm guessing this now also means the family of everyone who was (on purpose, specifically) killed by someone running over them in a car can now sue the car manufacturer? And the family of people who have been stabbed to death can now sue whichever company made the knife that's used?

[Griff88 1,952]

1 hour ago, heywoodu said:

I'm guessing this now also means the family of everyone who was (on purpose, specifically) killed by someone running over them in a car can now sue the car manufacturer? And the family of people who have been stabbed to death can now sue whichever company made the knife that's used?

 

Lol basically it enables more incidents like the Indonesian parent who sued a school which her child attend to pay her for damage caused (?) and also to close the school because her child failed the exam thus unable to continue for the next grade

[Monzanator 4,503]

5 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

Our Supreme Court has ruled that the family of kids killed in the Sandy Hook Shooting can sue Remington (the gun company) for their role in the shooting. It’s a huge win the anti-gun lobby.

 

Also, the public impeachment hearings start tomorrow, so can’t wait for the next few weeks of that circus.

 

4 hours ago, heywoodu said:

I'm guessing this now also means the family of everyone who was (on purpose, specifically) killed by someone running over them in a car can now sue the car manufacturer? And the family of people who have been stabbed to death can now sue whichever company made the knife that's used?

 

Americans are that stupid to follow this insane logic. Paul Walker's family sued Porsche over his death despite the driver of the car was proven to be speeding twice over the limit which led to the crash. Of course they will blame the gun producers for any shootings because they can't just blame the people who actually committed all the murders. It's simply insane.

[Shravan Kumar 109]

5 hours ago, Olympian1010 said:

Our Supreme Court has ruled that the family of kids killed in the Sandy Hook Shooting can sue Remington (the gun company) for their role in the shooting. It’s a huge win the anti-gun lobby.

 

Also, the public impeachment hearings start tomorrow, so can’t wait for the next few weeks of that circus.

Just one question was the gun legally obtained by the shooter?

[Dunadan 1,103]

https://time.com/5725068/sandy-hook-remington-supreme-court/

 

Quote

The Court’s decision not to take on the Remington case is significant and suggests the court is not yet willing to weigh in on challenges to a federal law that has protected gun companies from lawsuits since it was enacted in 2005. The law, formally known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, largely shields firearm and ammunition manufacturers and sellers from liability when their products are used in crimes. There are a few exceptions, such as if a defective weapon causes death or injury or if a seller or manufacturer is found to have violated a law in the marketing or sale of the product. But the law has widely deterred families from targeting gun makers in court.

In 2014, two years after a gunman killed 20 children and six faculty members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., nine family members of victims and one survivor took on the challenge and filed a wrongful death suit against Remington over its marketing practices. Remington argued it was protected under the law, but the families’ suit said the federal law did not apply because they were accusing Remington of violating state laws in the marketing of the weapon.

 

[Shravan Kumar 109]

8 minutes ago, Dunadan said:

https://time.com/5725068/sandy-hook-remington-supreme-court/

 

 

Any info about what marketing violation they have made?