Donald Trump for President Thread

[kithnou]

Took me a second to realize that was Fox News...she's a pissed off conservative woman with a voice.

She can be an armpit unshaven feminist for all I care...she is hot.

 

[mezzrow]

It has to be said that once mental folks like @Adversus/@Cypher/@MartyMcFly have left the conversation, there was some very interesting, thought provoking, and constructive talk in this thread.

Sorry @mezzrow if I bit off your arm with regards to a 'gun' debate by taking such a strong stance. I simply can't reach across the aisle when your side refuses to at all on that one. I don't understand how you as and educated American can poo poo the thought that the second amendment is flawed. We only want some simple controls in place so that people can prove they are able, knowledgeable, and aren't a danger to society based on their previous actions.

How is that a bad thing? All logic circuits demand some sort of check and balances.

The right to bear arms. A shovel is an arm...a iron skittle is an arm...your arm is an arm. A canon is an arm too...should everyone legally be able to own a cannon or a dirty bomb to do their work in the militia as constituted?

Our forefathers did a brilliant job...but they weren't perfect. Neither is the Second Amendment.

Hillary and her minions will be too busy dealing with "events" to come after the guns after they win this election that cannot be over soon enough. I'm not worried about it. There will be more immediate issues to deal with, like the collapse of Obamacare into single payer. That's what they'll be focused on managing.

Unless we're embroiled in a bunch of wars, that is. Wars they can't decide to not tell us about.

Those NRA boys do know how to motivate their base though, don't they? Think of it as the GOP version of the ads showing Paul Ryan shoving Granny off the cliff in her wheelchair.

Oh, and can you explain how the Obama administration got involved in that "Fast and Furious" thing that sent all those untraced guns to Mexico and got that Border Patrol cop (and lots of Mexicans) killed a few years ago. That's all on the Obama administration and Eric Holder. Why would they do that if not to create some bogus rationale for a war against gun dealers? Go study up on it and get back to me.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html

 

[tsubaki]

It has to be said that once mental folks like @Adversus/@Cypher/@MartyMcFly have left the conversation, there was some very interesting, thought provoking, and constructive talk in this thread.

Sorry @mezzrow if I bit off your arm with regards to a 'gun' debate by taking such a strong stance. I simply can't reach across the aisle when your side refuses to at all on that one. I don't understand how you as and educated American can poo poo the thought that the second amendment is flawed. We only want some simple controls in place so that people can prove they are able, knowledgeable, and aren't a danger to society based on their previous actions.

How is that a bad thing? All logic circuits demand some sort of check and balances.

The right to bear arms. A shovel is an arm...a iron skittle is an arm...your arm is an arm. A canon is an arm too...should everyone legally be able to own a cannon or a dirty bomb to do their work in the militia as constituted?

Our forefathers did a brilliant job...but they weren't perfect. Neither is the Second Amendment.

The problem with this is that there really isn't an argument for restricting the second amendment like that if you also accept that it should exist in any meaningful form. Either you accept that citizens can own firearms, with all that goes with it, or you don't; bringing in all manner of tinkering around the edges - closing the "gun show loophole", limiting magazine sizes, gun-locks etc - would do (and has done) very little to actually solve any of the problems that people cite about widespread gun ownership; the wrong people will still be more than likely able to get them.

 

[tsubaki]

Hillary and her minions will be too busy dealing with "events" to come after the guns after they win this election that cannot be over soon enough. I'm not worried about it. There will be more immediate issues to deal with, like the collapse of Obamacare into single payer. That's what they'll be focused on managing.

Unless we're embroiled in a bunch of wars, that is. Wars they can't decide to not tell us about.

Those NRA boys do know how to motivate their base though, don't they? Think of it as the GOP version of the ads showing Paul Ryan shoving Granny off the cliff in her wheelchair.

Oh, and can you explain how the Obama administration got involved in that "Fast and Furious" thing that sent all those untraced guns to Mexico and got that Border Patrol cop (and lots of Mexicans) killed a few years ago. That's all on the Obama administration and Eric Holder. Why would they do that if not to create some bogus rationale for a war against gun dealers? Go study up on it and get back to me.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg-storygallery.html

Obamacare collapsing into single payer would probably win Hilary the next election, as hundreds of millions of Americans suddenly find they have money again and the Treasury stops taking such a hammering.

 

[Ashtonian]

The problem with this is that there really isn't an argument for restricting the second amendment like that if you also accept that it should exist in any meaningful form. Either you accept that citizens can own firearms, with all that goes with it, or you don't; bringing in all manner of tinkering around the edges - closing the "gun show loophole", limiting magazine sizes, gun-locks etc - would do (and has done) very little to actually solve any of the problems that people cite about widespread gun ownership; the wrong people will still be more than likely able to get them.

got to laugh really.

countries with the highest amount of gun deaths are ones where they are legal. It is almost like no-one can connect the two points!

Ban guns totally and your random messed up teenager cannot go and act on the voices in his head like you get now. Literally most of the problem here is that anyone can go and buy a gun, stop that and it suddenly becomes much more difficult over time to get them for your average murderer.

Obvious'y doesn't eradicate gun crime but it exists anywhere in the world to begin with,

 

[mezzrow]

Obamacare collapsing into single payer would probably win Hilary the next election, as hundreds of millions of Americans suddenly find they have money again and the Treasury stops taking such a hammering.

She agrees, and that's the plan. It has worked so far.

Here's the rub - Obamacare is not seen as a success but is being deemed a failure, even by its initial supporters. This is a trend that will continue as deductibles go up and premiums rise by double digit margins. Politically this is untenable. Her party must win the Senate this election to pull it off, and the resistance will be even more furious than it has been to date. She will only have a two-year window to succeed, and this only by exercising what is termed "the nuclear option" in the conduct of business in the Senate.

It will be messy. Not to be confused with Messi, which is another whole kettle of fish. The blonde highlights don't do much for me, tbh.

 

[tsubaki]

got to laugh really.

countries with the highest amount of gun deaths are ones where they are legal. It is almost like no-one can connect the two points!

Ban guns totally and your random messed up teenager cannot go and act on the voices in his head like you get now. Literally most of the problem here is that anyone can go and buy a gun, stop that and it suddenly becomes much more difficult over time to get them for your average murderer.

Obvious'y doesn't eradicate gun crime but it exists anywhere in the world to begin with,

Indeed, though of course actually trying to ban guns over there (or more correctly, trying to enforce a gun ban) would probably spark off something that would probably meet the definition of a civil war. I am not that sure that you could ever trust the US Government to rule over an entirely un-armed citizenry either.

 

[mezzrow]

The problem with this is that there really isn't an argument for restricting the second amendment like that if you also accept that it should exist in any meaningful form. Either you accept that citizens can own firearms, with all that goes with it, or you don't; bringing in all manner of tinkering around the edges - closing the "gun show loophole", limiting magazine sizes, gun-locks etc - would do (and has done) very little to actually solve any of the problems that people cite about widespread gun ownership; the wrong people will still be more than likely able to get them.

I'm completely in agreement with this.

Indeed, though of course actually trying to ban guns over there (or more correctly, trying to enforce a gun ban) would probably spark off something that would probably meet the definition of a civil war. I am not that sure that you could ever trust the US Government to rule over an entirely un-armed citizenry either.

This as well.

 

[tsubaki]

She agrees, and that's the plan. It has worked so far.

Here's the rub - Obamacare is not seen as a success but is being deemed a failure, even by its initial supporters. This is a trend that will continue as deductibles go up and premiums rise by double digit margins. Politically this is untenable. Her party must win the Senate this election to pull it off, and the resistance will be even more furious than it has been to date. She will only have a two-year window to succeed, and this only by exercising what is termed "the nuclear option" in the conduct of business in the Senate.

It will be messy. Not to be confused with Messi, which an other whole kettle of fish. The blonde highlights don't do much for me, tbh.

Of course it is - what I am trying to point out though is that if they brought single payer in, the furore over it would die down quickly as people realized how much cheaper it was than what they have now. The US Government shells out more taxpayer dollars per capita, just for medicaid and medicare, than the UK Government pays out for the entire NHS. I am not sure that the resistance to such a move would come from anyone other than the firms who have been coining it in for far too long either.

 

[mezzrow]

Of course it is - what I am trying to point out though is that if they brought single payer in, the furore over it would die down quickly as people realized how much cheaper it was than what they have now. The US Government shells out more taxpayer dollars per capita, just for medicaid and medicare, than the UK Government pays out for the entire NHS. I am not sure that the resistance to such a move would come from anyone other than the firms who have been coining it in for far too long either.

I suspect we'll get to find out. I hope you are correct, but I think we may both find your optimistic scenario is a bit too rosy.

 

[ilikecheese]

The problem with this is that there really isn't an argument for restricting the second amendment like that if you also accept that it should exist in any meaningful form. Either you accept that citizens can own firearms, with all that goes with it, or you don't; bringing in all manner of tinkering around the edges - closing the "gun show loophole", limiting magazine sizes, gun-locks etc - would do (and has done) very little to actually solve any of the problems that people cite about widespread gun ownership; the wrong people will still be more than likely able to get them.

So it's either a free for all or nothing at all?

There has to be a middle ground. People in this country...especially in the most remote areas still kill their own dinner.

I just don't understand why it has to be such a polarizing issue. Why all or nothing? Can't there be a middle where some measures are put in place to make sure guns are owned by folks that know how to use them properly and can prove they not a threat to society based on their own actions?

This frustrates me to no end the idea that it's all or nothing.

 

[jhramone]

got to laugh really.

countries with the highest amount of gun deaths are ones where they are legal. It is almost like no-one can connect the two points!

Ban guns totally and your random messed up teenager cannot go and act on the voices in his head like you get now. Literally most of the problem here is that anyone can go and buy a gun, stop that and it suddenly becomes much more difficult over time to get them for your average murderer.

Obvious'y doesn't eradicate gun crime but it exists anywhere in the world to begin with,

I just have one issue with this post, your average murderer is someone who engages in an abusive relationship with a partner or close friend, not a mentally ill teenager. 90% of homicides are the end result of domestic abuse or a bar fight amongst friends. All of the criminology research I've seen has shown that the police departments that make assaults their highest priority and get the most domestic convictions also have incredibly low homicide rates. If you end domestic abuse, you end 90% of American homicides.

This has nothing to do with the gun debate, this is just the reality of crime control in the US.

 

[Ruairi77]

So it's either a free for all or nothing at all?

There has to be a middle ground. People in this country...especially in the most remote areas still kill their own dinner.

I just don't understand why it has to be such a polarizing issue. Why all or nothing? Can't there be a middle where some measures are put in place to make sure guns are owned by folks that know how to use them properly and can prove they not a threat to society based on their own actions?

This frustrates me to no end the idea that it's all or nothing.

It's nuts, the constitution was written with the ability to amend. It was never meant to be a static document. There are gun laws in place that the NRA accept but would be in breach of the second amendment as it doesn't clarify what 'arms' are. Closing the gun show loophole, stopping private sales and enforcing mandatory background checks is no more an invasion on your constitutional rights than banning fully automatic machine guns. What constitutional purists seem to completely overlook is that the constitution was designed to be a malleable document designed to be as relevant now as it was in 1787.

 

[Ashtonian]

I just have one issue with this post, your average murderer is someone who engages in an abusive relationship with a partner or close friend, not a mentally ill teenager. 90% of homicides are the end result of domestic abuse or a bar fight amongst friends. All of the criminology research I've seen has shown that the police departments that make assaults their highest priority and get the most domestic convictions also have incredibly low homicide rates. If you end domestic abuse, you end 90% of American homicides.

This has nothing to do with the gun debate, this is just the reality of crime control in the US.

Without starting a debate on this i think you missed my point.

What sort of person goes into a school and shoots it up? Is that domestic? My point is crime happens, same as people get shot whether guns are legal or not. You can't magic that part of the world away. But the things like school shootings, that would be entirely avoidable if these teenagers in question couldn't walk into their local gun shop and buy a gun after 48 hours is it?

I specify that sort of example because no child should go to school and not come home. And the murderers are almost always disgruntled/mentally ill teenagers/former students. There is plenty of examples though, the cinema shootings another, the sniper, the church etc I can promise you all of them would have been avoided if guns were not so easily accessed making committing the crime easier.

 

[jhramone]

Without starting a debate on this i think you missed my point.

What sort of person goes into a school and shoots it up? Is that domestic? My point is crime happens, same as people get shot whether guns are legal or not. You can't magic that part of the world away. But the things like school shootings, that would be entirely avoidable if these teenagers in question couldn't walk into their local gun shop and buy a gun after 48 hours is it?

I specify that sort of example because no child should go to school and not come home. And the murderers are almost always disgruntled/mentally ill teenagers/former students. There is plenty of examples though, the cinema shootings another, the sniper, the church etc I can promise you all of them would have been avoided if guns were not so easily accessed making committing the crime easier.

And I think you missed my point. We live in a nation that averages over 157,000 homicides a year, yet we are arguing about policy based on a handful of, while tragic, not statistically significant incidents. Even if we had mass shootings remain the same, but eliminated all domestic abuse incidents that led to homicides, our homicide numbers would drop to only 100-200. Out of 320 million people, only 200 or so would be murdered. That's why I think the debate needs to shift. If we're talking about saving lives, I want to save 156,800, not just the several hundred highly publicized ones.