Who would you vote for Pete,?
I am leaning towards Trump sounds more fun, not that I have a vote
Donald Trump for President Thread
- Thread starter longers
- Start date
- Status
I am leaning towards Trump sounds more fun, not that I have a vote
He already offered Kasich control over foreign and domestic policy. So it's not even a question anymore. He doesn't want to execute the office.
Are you scared of people with guns?
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
I wouldn't vote for either of them. However right from the very beginning I've thought that Trump would win it......
Both not good, honestly didn't think Trump had a chance, surprised he is in the lead.
I am a firm believer that background checks for gun ownership should be extensive and mandatory.
I also believe there is simply no reason for semi automatic assalt rifles to be legal.
The Right and the NRA simply won't allow these simple controls to be put in place.
He isn't, unless you are basing your assesment in just one poll. For instance the NBC poll covering a similar timefame had Clinton +6 and one state poll even had Clinton leading in Texas!
Historically averaging all polls tends to get a better result which, despite all the sturm and drang, currently shows the race is similar to how it was in October.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
However the recent trend has most definitely been favourable to Trump and with the debates coming up and approx 20%of the electorate either undecided or currently saying they are voting for a 3rd party candidate there is potential for either side to make big gains/losses.
Personally I doubt either will, absent a major shock, given how well known both candidates are and how strongly people feel about them but it has been a crazy election!
Ok so what do you feel in a background would be grounds for denial of ownership? The second point I'll get to in a bit. I would argue that these controls while you find them simple are only the beginning of de-arming the population. If you want an easily coerced and docile population take away the foundation of their power against government. Correct me if I'm wrong but you probably do not spend time around the average gun owning American. It's issues like this where people get confused over "a small change to the law" and a gradual chipping away at the foundation that it represents. Look at the militarization of police forces across the country and the changing definition of a "domestic terrorist" under the Obama administration which will be continued because people don't care until their loved one is held with no intention of a trial or even bringing up charges let alone communicating their whereabouts to the family members. Held with no trial date, no bail, no specific charges.
As an ancillary arm of the federal government look at what the CPD have been doing for a while. Thousands of Lawyers knew about this as well but said nothing as people's constitutional rights were thrown out the window, just another example of the justice system being fundamentally broken with judges in the pockets of lawyers (they have to donate to a judges campaign to get any results in court). Having lived in Chicago for a while I can say without doubt it is a microcosm of a police state (it's all I can speak to with extensive experience in terms of large cities but I'm sure they're taking cues from NYPD LAPD etc). Not being able to go 30 seconds without seeing a patrol car or the numerous numerous times they would patrol on the walkways between our buildings and seeing how they manhandled and beat up people literally directly below my window after they were subdued was shocking until I looked into all that's going on in our country.
In short. We need guns to protect our natural rights meaning that when someone steps over the line of their duty and they start bullying the population do you think a peaceful march on Washington will be effective?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site
Nope.
Well reasoned argument. Would you care to suggest some alternative to an oppressive state organization?
Yes mate, be less insane and get your head around the fact the King of England isn't going to kick your door down armed with a musket any time soon.
Haha good one. So do you simply wish to disregard the evidence of a tightening hold on the population or do you have some actual reason to believe it isn't happening? Because in this case you seem to be the insane one, which is a conveniently dismissive term without needing to address the issues because of how you feel.
An actual reason? Yeah mate - I live in a country where we have no widespread ownership of guns, and somewhat amazingly we aren't held captive by some sort of dark arts government conspiracy.
And even if we were, gun ownership wouldn't do a thing. What's the idea exactly, some sort of mass uprising against... something?
Let's be honest, the reason you think gun ownership is essential is because America, collectively, are massively paranoid and a still relatively young nation that lacks the security in their own sense of being to understand not everything is waiting round every corner to shoot you.
I can at least understand the "home security" argument for Americans wanting guns - but the whole "protection against an oppressing government" thing is tin foil hat lunacy.
You had the right to bare arms in a completely different era where that law was relevant and made sense. But it's now 2016. I repeat, the King of England isn't going to kick your door down - get over it and, as a nation, grow up.
Amazing that you claim complete authority of intelligence over a government you have no direct experience with. You living in the UK and your circumstances do you really feel it is a 1 to 1 comparison? Honestly? If so you show a complete lack of nuance in understanding the differences between countries and their populations and governments. At it's core it is a "home security" issue. All of that isn't even a reason especially when I show you evidence of our constitutional rights being disregarded in a massive way and you counter that I'm paranoid. It's people of the same thinking of you that refuse to acknowledge what's happening because of, in my opinion, it being a too real and inherently scary concept that a government does not have your best interest at heart.
I've numbered the points I am going to address:
1. Convictions of violent and/or theft related felonies and misdemeanors. Not a US citizen. Inability to pass an eye test. Among many things that would be reasons to not issue someone a gun.
2. That is typical NRA rhetoric. Saying that putting controls in place is equal to removing guns entirely is a massive massive leap that the NRA would have everyone believe. It's ridiculous.
3. I lived in rural South Texas and Houston, TX for a total of about 12 years. So yes I know what it's like...especially in rural places with regards to the stance on guns. It wouldn't be difficult either. Effective X date all guns purchased require a background check prior to purchase.
4. That point is pretty insane...fear mongering NRA rhetoric again.
I sometimes wonder if an ISIS member is really more scary than the religious right in America. It's an increasingly close run thing.
- Status
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
