The next U.S. President

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Snake

Agreed! For the past two decades we have had a "do nothing congress" that is more concerned about how there party could be affected by proposed laws than what is better for the country as a whole.

Since the NeoCon movement within the Republican party took power in the '90s the shift within that party has been toward obstructionism. That was most demonstrated when Obama took power, the Republicans stated overtly that their main, and only, goal was to obstruct him and the Democrats regardless of how it may harm the country's best interests. They've set new records for filibusters and have done everything possible to block Obama at every turn. This has hurt the nation in many ways, both direct and indirect. There have been attempts to use false equivalencies between the Republicans and the Democrats, but when one look in detail one sees that the Republicans have been 100X worse. It's not been a "do nothing" congress, it's been a "block everything in order to hurt Democrats" congress, and blame for that blockage can be laid squarely at the feet of Republicans.

Originally Posted by Snake

The way this election cycle is going I think it signals the end of the Republican Party. Will the Democratic Party end soon after?

If Trump loses, the Republican party, specifically the conservative Christian Taliban wing of that party, will be able to recover from this and continue building and gaining power. I see this as an existential threat to this nation. I fervently hope that Trump wins because, though it will be horrible in the short run, in the long run it will put a stop to this nation's incrementalist movement toward the kind of radical conservatism that has infected and destroyed so many societies and nations around the world, particularly in the middle east.

I see Trump as a form of political chemotherapy that can destroy the cancer of extremist conservatism that is metastizing in our nation.

Originally Posted by Whiskey

I can see how clinton got the democratic nod, they've been grooming her for years...

Actually, no. Clinton has always been a self-driven and ambitious person. She has sought, and worked hard, to work in public service for decades, including working in the shitshow that is the Republican-controlled Senate. A lot of people in the Democratic party didn't want her to run because she's become such a target of hate by the Republicans. As we all know, hate is a great motivator to get people to vote, and the hatestorm the Republicans have created around her is epic. I think the conservative hate for Clinton is so strong now that Trump could rape a toddler on live TV and not lose a meaningful number of votes.

Originally Posted by Whiskey

...but trump if you ever wondered about how hitler's rise to power happened it's being replayed for you

The chants of 'lock her up' and about the media 'lock them up', will he start building the concentration prison camps or the wall first
Or use the camps to supply free labour to build the wall...

Agreed. Trump is, and is using, the same kinds of tactics as history's worst demigogues.

[JohnnyBravo]

I think trump would sadly be the best of these two choices... Hillary would be a catastrophe

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by JohnnyBravo

I think trump would sadly be the best of these two choices... Hillary would be a catastrophe

Trump keeps saying that, but at this point I'm kinda thinking Trump's all out of credibility. Just yesterday he was caught spewing Russian propaganda, word for word right out of a Russian political publication.

If he does get elected I'm looking forward to learning Russian.

Все приветствуют Cheeto!

[SLOWn60]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Just yesterday he was caught spewing Russian propaganda, word for word right out of a Russian political publication.

Perhaps his wife is his speech writer?

[JohnnyBravo]

I'm just gonna watch this from over here... I'm really no good at debating with dummies

[DEFY]

America loses either way. I would take Hilary over Trump, why she will probably give all of our secrets away Trump would probably start WWIII over his toupee being shipped through UPS from China to Mexico all the way to Canada before being received in Florida.

[cbinker]

Originally Posted by DEFY

America loses either way. I would take Hilary over Trump, why she will probably give all of our secrets away Trump would probably start WWIII over his toupee being shipped through UPS from China to Mexico all the way to Canada before being received in Florida.

Congress wouldn't let Trump do it. But the poor relations between Obama and Russia right now is far worse then anything, and Hillary will continue those poor relations. Trump will start a Civil War, Hillary will cause WW3.

[JohnnyBravo]

No war is civil

[allanoue]

With Putin working to rebuild the USSR, bad relations is what we need to slow his roll. Not a Moscow crony for president.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by SLOWn60

Perhaps his wife is his speech writer?

Which wife? LOL...

He goes through wives like some people go through bikes...

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by DEFY

America loses either way. I would take Hilary over Trump, why she will probably give all of our secrets away Trump would probably start WWIII over his toupee being shipped through UPS from China to Mexico all the way to Canada before being received in Florida.

Someone once said, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

If Trump installs enough of his people in key places within the military there's a good chance we'll all get to see the first nuclear weapons used since Nagasaki.

[DEFY]

Originally Posted by cbinker

Congress wouldn't let Trump do it. But the poor relations between Obama and Russia right now is far worse then anything, and Hillary will continue those poor relations. Trump will start a Civil War, Hillary will cause WW3.

Do you really think there are good relations with Russia? Putting Trump in office would be a disaster. He has no political background and he already puts his foot in his mouth constantly just trying to talk to the American Nation, let's not put him face to face with other leaders and see how that turns out.

[Panda]

https://www.isidewith.com/

Interesting site that asks your opinions on a variety of topics. Then shows how you align with what the candidates purported stances are. It also shows you where you fall on the liberal/conservative spectrum.

[cbinker]

Originally Posted by DEFY

Do you really think there are good relations with Russia? Putting Trump in office would be a disaster. He has no political background and he already puts his foot in his mouth constantly just trying to talk to the American Nation, let's not put him face to face with other leaders and see how that turns out.

People continue to throw out "political" background/experience about him. I think that is what makes him appealing to most. Politicians are garbage. Right now he is exploiting how corrupt the system is because of his faults. He continues to get support and now he is being attacked from the Democrats, Republicans and the Democrat Run Media.

Asside from that, the hidden assaults from the corporate elite hiring disruptors at Trump events and BLM movement protests.

You are honestly looking past the Open Supreme Court seat and the 2-3 more potential Seats that are going to open in the coming years, to support Hillary? Are you anti 2nd Amendment? As soon as they strip us of that all other rights disappear faster then they already are.

[Bigballsofpaint]

Originally Posted by Panda

https://www.isidewith.com/

Interesting site that asks your opinions on a variety of topics. Then shows how you align with what the candidates purported stances are. It also shows you where you fall on the liberal/conservative spectrum.

Not too shabby, im all for Johnson i guess. And Trump is literally 1% more (in my personal poll) better than clinton for me. It all makes sence now.......

Personally, i want to vote johnson but if they cant even make the debate stage, how can they win the election? So in that case, vote trump, because ill take anyone over Hilary.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Trump keeps saying that, but at this point I'm kinda thinking Trump's all out of credibility. Just yesterday he was caught spewing Russian propaganda, word for word right out of a Russian political publication.

If he does get elected I'm looking forward to learning Russian.

Все приветствуют Cheeto!

This might be worth reading:

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/...s-putin-plots/

Same journalist that was one of the key Snowden confidants. He's not a Trump fan by any stretch. This article lays out how quickly folks are able to successfully tie Russian plots to events that have much more likely explanations, with essentially no supporting evidence.

[DEFY]

Originally Posted by cbinker

People continue to throw out "political" background/experience about him. I think that is what makes him appealing to most. Politicians are garbage. Right now he is exploiting how corrupt the system is because of his faults. He continues to get support and now he is being attacked from the Democrats, Republicans and the Democrat Run Media.

Asside from that, the hidden assaults from the corporate elite hiring disruptors at Trump events and BLM movement protests.

You are honestly looking past the Open Supreme Court seat and the 2-3 more potential Seats that are going to open in the coming years, to support Hillary? Are you anti 2nd Amendment? As soon as they strip us of that all other rights disappear faster then they already are.

Not having a background in politics is not appealing to me. That is like saying your hire anyone to build your house cause you don't like the contractors in your area.

Don't ever think they will abolish the 2nd amendment. The idiots of this world believe removing such will protect them from themselves. What they don't realize is they can't stand in front of the well educated and well stocked people and ask for their weapons and not expect a civil war that would leave the dumb witted that want the weapons removed eradicated.

Like I said I don't believe either deserve the Presidency. But I would rather some one diverse in the area to lead rather than some one who WILL mess up.

[allanoue]

Who would you rather leave alone in a room with your sister or daughter or mother?

[Bigballsofpaint]

Originally Posted by allanoue

Who would you rather leave alone in a room with your sister or daughter or mother?

As long as they are carrying it doesnt matter to me...

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by Bigballsofpaint

As long as they are carrying it doesnt matter to me...

Do you think the SS would allow that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...517tj885g3c8fr
I see this at the end of all Huffington Post articles.
Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims ― 1.6 billion members of an entire religion ― from entering the U.S.

[alex.s]

3) Bernard Sanders.

[cbinker]

Originally Posted by allanoue

Do you think the SS would allow that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...517tj885g3c8fr
I see this at the end of all Huffington Post articles.
Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims ― 1.6 billion members of an entire religion ― from entering the U.S.

More misrepresentation, ISIS has vowed to infiltrate refugees, already happening in Europe. He said to TEMPORARILY ban the refugees until there is a better vetting process.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by cbinker

More misrepresentation, ISIS has vowed to infiltrate refugees, already happening in Europe. He said to TEMPORARILY ban the refugees until there is a better vetting process.

He said extreme vetting

[Snake]

Originally Posted by allanoue

Who would you rather leave alone in a room with your sister or daughter or mother?

Neither one of them.

[kdogg2077]

Yeah I'm probably voting Gary Johnson, and yes I know he forget what Aleppo is. Small potatoes compared to Trump and Hilary's transgressions IMHO.

I have always voted Republican but I can't support Trump. I can't bring myself to vote Hilary either. She just hasn't really accomplished anything in her whole political career. She's only relevant because of her last name. And the whole email thing makes her looks so inept/shady.

Flame shield on.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by cbinker

More misrepresentation, ISIS has vowed to infiltrate refugees, already happening in Europe. He said to TEMPORARILY ban the refugees until there is a better vetting process.

Here's the thing. This is one of those areas that's incredibly easy to debunk if one just walks through what's actually happening, does some number-crunching, and also realizes that nothing in the real world reduces risk to zero.

The US admitted 78 million visitors from other countries in 2015.

http://travel.trade.gov/view/m-2015-I-001/index.html

18 Million from Mexico, 20 Million from Canada, and an additional 38 million from any other location on the planet. These are all folks that filled out those I-94 forms on the way in; let's put aside our concerns that there may be X million more, and keep it at that known #. 99+% of these 78 million individuals had *way* less vetting than what is necessary for the refugees to gain asylum in the US. From a risk standpoint, we'd hope that ISIS and any other group is using the refugee process to try and get evildoers into the country. We'd be way more likely to identify any bad actors that way, compared to any normal tourist visa or other traditional entry to the country.

(link to current refugee process)

All of the numbers thrown around in the most recent debate talking about these huge percentage increases, it's the tiniest rounding error. Whether it's 5,000 refugees, 50,000, or even 250,000; that is still such a tiny fraction of people coming to the country (a fraction of 1 percent), that using that as a target to reduce risk just wouldn't work. Whether it's quintupled tomorrow, or cut to zero immediately, it still does nothing to make the US any safer, by any reasonable measure.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by DEFY

Don't ever think they will abolish the 2nd amendment.

So many people apparently didn't pass high school government class, which is odd because you have to pass in order to graduate. Maybe that explains the folks who are terrified that somehow the government is going to get rid of the Second Amendment and come take their guns.

The fact of the matter is that to make a Constitutional Amendment is an incredibly difficult process that takes years and is almost certainly guaranteed to fail. In fact, it is so difficult that in the two hundred and twenty five years since the Bill of Rights, the original set of Amendments, was ratified there have only been seventeen Amendments made. Seventeen in two and a quarter centuries. And one of those, the 18th banning Alcohol, was overturned with the 21st Amendment. The last Amendment was in 1992, and it dealt with Congressional pay timing.

It will take a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Second Amendment. The highest court of the land has put the final word on the validity of the Second Amendment into permanent history. It's a settled issue. No one's coming to take everyone's guns away, not now, and not for the indefinite future. People that run around saying otherwise are, quite frankly IMHO, mentally ill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_Constitution

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by kdogg2077

Yeah I'm probably voting Gary Johnson, and yes I know he forget what Aleppo is.

Impossible to forget something that was never known in the first place.

Originally Posted by kdogg2077

[Hillary] just hasn't really accomplished anything in her whole political career.

Here's a site that has information on what she and Trump have accomplished in their careers: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tools/way-back-when/

It randomly selects a year then says what the two candidates did at that time. Note, it's obviously biased since it's her website, but the results are hilarious. For instance, for 1994 it says this:

Hillary leads the American delegation to Norway for the 1994 Winter Olympics, where she talks about health care reform with the first female Prime Minister of Norway.

Trump seems to blame his ex-wife for their divorce, saying that “putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing.”

[cbinker]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

So many people apparently didn't pass high school government class, which is odd because you have to pass in order to graduate. Maybe that explains the folks who are terrified that somehow the government is going to get rid of the Second Amendment and come take their guns.

The fact of the matter is that to make a Constitutional Amendment is an incredibly difficult process that takes years and is almost certainly guaranteed to fail. In fact, it is so difficult that in the two hundred and twenty five years since the Bill of Rights, the original set of Amendments, was ratified there have only been seventeen Amendments made. Seventeen in two and a quarter centuries. And one of those, the 18th banning Alcohol, was overturned with the 21st Amendment. The last Amendment was in 1992, and it dealt with Congressional pay timing.

It will take a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Second Amendment. The highest court of the land has put the final word on the validity of the Second Amendment into permanent history. It's a settled issue. No one's coming to take everyone's guns away, not now, and not for the indefinite future. People that run around saying otherwise are, quite frankly IMHO, mentally ill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_Constitution

I know how the constitution works, but California seems to be setting a very disturbing tone on gun rights that can and will filter over to the Federal Level.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

It's a settled issue. No one's coming to take everyone's guns away, not now, and not for the indefinite future. People that run around saying otherwise are, quite frankly IMHO, mentally ill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_Constitution

I agree with you that nobody is taking anyone's guns away. The thing that concerns me is that if they pass federal laws that make it financially prohibitive and an incredibly time consuming process to own a firearm.

I would like to see my stringent gun control laws though.

[DEFY]

Originally Posted by Panda

I agree with you that nobody is taking anyone's guns away. The thing that concerns me is that if they pass federal laws that make it financially prohibitive and an incredibly time consuming process to own a firearm.

I would like to see my stringent gun control laws though.

The issue with making more stringent laws is it makes it a hassle for those who abide by them, it doesn't affect those who are already breaking them. You can buy a gun and wait the 30 days or you can buy a stolen weapon within an hour. Who do you think is going to commit a crime?

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by DEFY

The issue with making more stringent laws is it makes it a hassle for those who abide by them, it doesn't affect those who are already breaking them. You can buy a gun and wait the 30 days or you can buy a stolen weapon within an hour. Who do you think is going to commit a crime?

Good solution. Just give up and let the gun proliferation continue out of control.

:-|

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by cbinker

I know how the constitution works, but California seems to be setting a very disturbing tone on gun rights that can and will filter over to the Federal Level.

Explain exactly how that would work, with specific scenarios and examples.

From my point of view, since SCOTUS has already settled 2nd amendment rights to own firearms in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDona...ity_of_Chicago there's not much that CA or any other state could to do change that.

Now, I can see more regulation on ownership in the interests of promoting safety, so for instance felons wouldn't be allowed to posses guns, nor would people with restraining orders against them for family violence. The same principle applies to owning and operating other devices with great potential for harm, such as tanker trucks full of gasoline, or boxes of dynamite. Other laws would require that guns be secured in homes with children, because we already know that children with easy access to their parent's guns can and do accidentally kill each other on a regular basis. Would you let a 9 year old drive your car? Why would someone leave a gun accessible by a 9 year old?

But overall, guns are a fully integrated part of our society and SCOTUS has settled that.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by DEFY

The issue with making more stringent laws is it makes it a hassle for those who abide by them, it doesn't affect those who are already breaking them. You can buy a gun and wait the 30 days or you can buy a stolen weapon within an hour. Who do you think is going to commit a crime?

Where can you get a stolen gun within an hour?

Would you be in favor of laws that made it harder for the black market for guns to exist?

To use deterrence you could make laws that were overwhelmingly punitive to people who unlawfully owned a gun, but for that to work you'd have to have a licensing and registration system for gun ownership like we have for cars and airplanes. If you don't have any way to keep track of who has and who should have guns, then you can't do anything to ensure that gun owners are legitimate.

[allanoue]

4 women now say it was not just locker room talk.
and counting
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...xual-touching/


I know this will come as a shock to many of you but I took that quiz thingy and it said I was 96% with the green candidate but 100% with Hilery.


I would have liked if Berny could have been president and at the time of the primary, all the polls showed Burnie beating all the Republicans by more than Hillary would, I think she will be better at actually governing.

Does she lie? They all do. I like her.

She is a horrible public speaker.

[DEFY]

Originally Posted by allanoue

Good solution. Just give up and let the gun proliferation continue out of control.

:-|

The saying goes "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". The idea of limiting and regressing the amount of guns out there doesn't change the fact that the means to murder will be changed by the amount of guns. Those that murder others don't need to feel that a law will change their just means to carry such a disastrous event out.The only change will be to the ability for people to defend them selves against such fiends. Your effectively limiting the rights of the innocent in hopes of squashing such events. But hey, making more laws to limit your freedoms is ok if you don't actually exercise that right to begin with. A man who owns 12 guns is no more dangerous than a man who owns none, if both are set on being humble people.

[allanoue]

Originally Posted by DEFY

The saying goes "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". The idea of limiting and regressing the amount of guns out there doesn't change the fact that the means to murder will be changed by the amount of guns. Those that murder others don't need to feel that a law will change their just means to carry such a disastrous event out.The only change will be to the ability for people to defend them selves against such fiends. Your effectively limiting the rights of the innocent in hopes of squashing such events. But hey, making more laws to limit your freedoms is ok if you don't actually exercise that right to begin with. A man who owns 12 guns is no more dangerous than a man who owns none, if both are set on being humble people.

Oz change to gun laws have proven that to be a lie

from
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Regardless of how much of a cause-and-effect relationship there might be between the NFA and gun deaths in Australia, it's undeniable that the firearms homicide rate in that country has decreased substantially since the implementation of the NFA. It's not the case, however, as suggested by the misleading and long out-of-date online piece quoted in the Example block above (which was written way back in 2001) that the overall crime rate in Australia has shot up since the NFA was introduced. The rates of various types of violent crimes (sexual assault, kidnapping, homicides of all types) have scarcely changed at all, and while the robbery rate rose substantially in the 1998-2001 timeframe, it dropped below its pre-NFA level by 2004 and has continually declined since then:

[DEFY]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Where can you get a stolen gun within an hour?

Would you be in favor of laws that made it harder for the black market for guns to exist?

To use deterrence you could make laws that were overwhelmingly punitive to people who unlawfully owned a gun, but for that to work you'd have to have a licensing and registration system for gun ownership like we have for cars and airplanes. If you don't have any way to keep track of who has and who should have guns, then you can't do anything to ensure that gun owners are legitimate.

Everywhere. Black markets sell much more than guns. The control of guns have much more to do with the violence impacted by them then they do a gun in it's sense. A gun is nothing more than a tool, if used by the proper carrier will make no difference in your daily life. You probably may walk past at least a couple carriers a day that you don't get bent out of shape over. Now give a gun to someone that has mental instability or purpose to kill and your talking a complete different situation. If people were more capable of being able to wield a gun properly the amount of carnage that person inflicts would be different versus the number of people who decide a gun is nothing more than a violent tool. Not everyone should have the ability to handle a gun but that choice wont be made by words on a piece of paper, those words will only impact those who wish to abide by those words.

[DEFY]

Originally Posted by allanoue

Oz change to gun laws have proven that to be a lie

from
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Regardless of how much of a cause-and-effect relationship there might be between the NFA and gun deaths in Australia, it's undeniable that the firearms homicide rate in that country has decreased substantially since the implementation of the NFA. It's not the case, however, as suggested by the misleading and long out-of-date online piece quoted in the Example block above (which was written way back in 2001) that the overall crime rate in Australia has shot up since the NFA was introduced. The rates of various types of violent crimes (sexual assault, kidnapping, homicides of all types) have scarcely changed at all, and while the robbery rate rose substantially in the 1998-2001 timeframe, it dropped below its pre-NFA level by 2004 and has continually declined since then:

Do we live in a parallel universe that works opposite of what we do to gain such ideas to base such a reference to? 5 years at one point in time is equal to five years in another can not be made. There are infinite possibilities that change the manner between those time stamps. To say that guns were the exact culprit of one time being more peaceful means they would have played out the exact same scenario with only the guns being used vs no-guns.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by DEFY

The issue with making more stringent laws is it makes it a hassle for those who abide by them, it doesn't affect those who are already breaking them. You can buy a gun and wait the 30 days or you can buy a stolen weapon within an hour. Who do you think is going to commit a crime?

I'm not disagreeing that if you only break up the set of potential gun owners into two groups - law abiding citizens and criminals. You can come to that conclusion.

I'd argue that you should break the law abiding citizens group into multiple sets - knowledgeable, competent, ignorant, incompetent. The goal of licensing would be to create more knowledgeable and competent gun owners and limit the amount of ignorant and incompetent gun owners.