Election 2016

[oregontrack]

i'm pretty liberal, but i'm not the biggest hillary fan. that said, i'll vote for her in the fall since the other option is a cartoon super-villain.

[greenyellow]

I'd vote for whichever candidate supported a full ban on guns. There isn't one compelling nor logical reason as to why someone needs a gun. They don't make you safer, we don't need well armed militias, you can hunt with bows and arrows and amendments can be amended (hence their name). Yes I know someone could stab me to death rather than shoot me and we aren't banning knives but I haven't seen any recent knife attacks in night clubs killing 49 people. Violent crimes will always happen and it sucks that law abiding citizens have to pay the price for the the criminals but that is reality. I'm all for mitigating the amount of damage a violent criminal can do which is what a gun ban would do.

Google Jim Jeffries Gun Control if you want a humorous yet valid argument against guns. If you can get past the cussing and his Aussie accent, he makes a surprising amount of sense for a comedian.

So you'd vote to make a well-proven self-protection device illegal then while not adequately assuring said criminals disarm as well? Are you going to tell people who are armed due to having protection orders against domestic abusers, stalkers, or other threatening people they need to get rid of their weapons? Are you going to tell farmers and others who have livestock they can no longer shoot predators who wish to harm their animals? Are you going to tell people who live far from police or in bad neighborhoods that they can no longer protect themselves from criminals? If you can say yes to any of those questions, then you and other anti-gun people are just plain foolish and unrealistic.

[duckfan22]

I am a hunter.. The rifle i use was made in 1949 and was left to me when my
Dad died in 1970 and i was just 13. Never got to go hunting with him before he
passed. I have other guns that i will protect my family with. They will never ever
get my guns. It's my right to have them. All we hear is the ideas to take our guns
from us but never ideas on how to get them from the criminals who already have them.

I do believe tho that the assault rifles should be much harder to get. I dont know why
one needs one. I am so tired already of politics by both sides. I am not voting for either
Hillary or Trump.. I cant believe with 370 million people in our country thats the best we
can do. Either way were screwed.

[nogerO]

I understand not liking Hillary, but saying she's as bad as Trump is pretty ridiculous to me. Trump is a new breed of awful, the most dangerous candidate in our country's history.

Hillary is a self-serving egomaniac who will do anything or say anything to get elected. I don't think she's ever told the truth in her life. "I don't recall..." If you think the country is headed in the right direction, then by all means, vote for the fake. Just ask yourself this question- Can I vote for a person who blatantly has broken law after law after law and gotten away with it. Even now our king, er dictator, oh wait El Presidente has endorsed a candidate who is being investigated by his own FBI and his own Inspector general stopped just short of calling for her head on a plate because of the BS she pulled while secretary of state. I'll take Trump any day. At least he speaks what's on his mind and doesn't lie every time he opens his mouth.

[nogerO]

I'd vote for whichever candidate supported a full ban on guns. There isn't one compelling nor logical reason as to why someone needs a gun. They don't make you safer, we don't need well armed militias, you can hunt with bows and arrows and amendments can be amended (hence their name). Yes I know someone could stab me to death rather than shoot me and we aren't banning knives but I haven't seen any recent knife attacks in night clubs killing 49 people. Violent crimes will always happen and it sucks that law abiding citizens have to pay the price for the the criminals but that is reality. I'm all for mitigating the amount of damage a violent criminal can do which is what a gun ban would do.

Google Jim Jeffries Gun Control if you want a humorous yet valid argument against guns. If you can get past the cussing and his Aussie accent, he makes a surprising amount of sense for a comedian.

So you'd vote to make a well-proven self-protection device illegal then while not adequately assuring said criminals disarm as well? Are you going to tell people who are armed due to having protection orders against domestic abusers, stalkers, or other threatening people they need to get rid of their weapons? Are you going to tell farmers and others who have livestock they can no longer shoot predators who wish to harm their animals? Are you going to tell people who live far from police or in bad neighborhoods that they can no longer protect themselves from criminals? If you can say yes to any of those questions, then you and other anti-gun people are just plain foolish and unrealistic.

Please stop! Don't you know that logic and common sense are the last thing liberals rely on to make decisions? It's all about the emotional BS when it comes to their ideas and opinions. Common sense? Common sense? The nerve...

[nogerO]

It's funny - you use words like 'overwhelming consensus' (which is a fallacious argument anyway, appeal to majority), and then when I point out a specific example of a 30-year professor of Meteorology at MIT who doesn't seem very overwhelmed, you launch into your insulting tirade. I know what the majority of scientists say. I also know who controls the funding gateways for most science in this country and that grants are not given to those who deviate from the narrative. It is funny though, how you are able to argue around in circles without ever dealing with the material point, that the earth simply hasn't warmed, that the climate hasn't changed to any significant degree. The MIT guy states that pretty plainly. I'm not sure how you could have missed it.

When I was a lad growing up in Oregon, we were shown fear-filled videos that insisted we were heading into another ice age within a few decades. Now the story is global warming. Through all of it, the temperature has remained the same, going through normal ebbs and flows. The echo chamber in the publicly-funded scientific world can shift gears on a dime, while still retaining the same arrogance and snobbery. It never ceases to amaze. Polling suggests that most people in the U.S. have taken a 'wake me up when something actually changes' approach. Most of us want to avoid pollution not because we think it causes volcanic eruptions and the north pole to boil over, but because we like clean air and less pavement and smokestacks in general. A lot of people hold to these views in spite of rude people like you rather than because of them.

Save your breath. Libtards need to hear the "popping" sound. And I'm not talking about the report of a firearm.

You can evaluate a candidate any way you want. As I say, I don't like Trump either. I do value the people, my neighbors, though who are voting for him this time. They are more significant to me than some narcissist on the internet who loves to go around insulting everyone and casting them as somehow sub-human. Even your own family members...now that is class. It's funny how the product of this supposedly enlightened scientific education is so often contempt for ones own family, the people who raised you. And for what? A warm feeling of being smarter than everyone? This is really sad. I'd say you have bigger problems than whether or not the temperature goes up another half degree in the next century.

[maxduck]

I understand not liking Hillary, but saying she's as bad as Drumpf is pretty ridiculous to me. Drumpf is a new breed of awful, the most dangerous candidate in our country's history.

Hillary is a self-serving egomaniac who will do anything or say anything to get elected. I don't think she's ever told the truth in her life. "I don't recall..." If you think the country is headed in the right direction, then by all means, vote for the fake. Just ask yourself this question- Can I vote for a person who blatantly has broken law after law after law and gotten away with it. Even now our king, er dictator, oh wait El Presidente has endorsed a candidate who is being investigated by his own FBI and his own Inspector general stopped just short of calling for her head on a plate because of the BS she pulled while secretary of state. I'll take Drumpf any day. At least he speaks what's on his mind and doesn't lie every time he opens his mouth.

True, not every time. It generally it runs about 80% of his statements are incorrect.

[FlDuckFan]

I understand not liking Hillary, but saying she's as bad as Drumpf is pretty ridiculous to me. Drumpf is a new breed of awful, the most dangerous candidate in our country's history.

Hillary is a self-serving egomaniac who will do anything or say anything to get elected. I don't think she's ever told the truth in her life. "I don't recall..." If you think the country is headed in the right direction, then by all means, vote for the fake. Just ask yourself this question- Can I vote for a person who blatantly has broken law after law after law and gotten away with it. Even now our king, er dictator, oh wait El Presidente has endorsed a candidate who is being investigated by his own FBI and his own Inspector general stopped just short of calling for her head on a plate because of the BS she pulled while secretary of state. I'll take Drumpf any day. At least he speaks what's on his mind and doesn't lie every time he opens his mouth.

True, not every time. It generally it runs about 80% of his statements are incorrect.

I'm not a fan of either but to say Trump doesn't lie every time he opens his mouth just means you're not paying attention. They both lie but Trump is the one who consistently contradicts himself repeatedly even during the same sentence. He speaks what's on his mind but that doesn't make the statement any better when it's racist .

[Tray Dub]

This thread might be the most intense discussion I've ever seen on this site. I hope we can maintain cordiality after all this.

Sorry I havent responded to people who have directly replied to me, I've been traveling.

[oregontrack]

I'm not a fan of either but to say Trump doesn't lie every time he opens his mouth just means you're not paying attention. They both lie but Trump is the one who consistently contradicts himself repeatedly even during the same sentence. He speaks what's on his mind but that doesn't make the statement any better when it's racist .

this is basically my mind-set. as i said previously i will be voting for clinton, but that's mainly because A.) she'll be good for climate change and several other causes i think are important; and B.) trump's thin skin, penchant for whining, and openly mocking minorities, the disabled, women... is not a good look. i realize to some that's actually a selling point ("he speaks his mind!") but as off-putting as i find clinton (and i do! honestly, i'm not trying to be her cheerleader) there's a fairly clear distinction between a politician being a politician (shady!) and a real-life clown. i won't throw down with anyone who disagrees, because we're so damn divisive as a country it never surprises me what others find common and endearing.

and now my thoughts on guns! (lucky you)

i'm a low-information anti-gun guy. which basically means i don't use them, and i don't necessarily see the need for them. i called the AR-15 an "assault weapon" to a friend and he then lectured me for 75 minutes about why it wasn't an assault weapon. i don't f*ckin' know.

but i'm also a realist. basically i'd like to see the ability for someone to shoot off 45 rounds in a minute go away. i don't feel anyone needs that kind of killing ability to readily available. i don't feel that's unreasonable. i don't care if you own a gun -- i'm not advocating a ban, or confiscating anything. i think anyone who ever believed obama was EVER going to ban all guns, or confiscate your guns, is a BLOODY MORON (for all you on the right who think us lefties are wingnuts for our thoughts on guns, i promise you that your paranoia is equally hilarious to us). so have a gun for self-defense, have a rifle for hunting, have a collection for your personal enjoyment. i don't care.

i realize that any new laws won't effect guns or magazines already out on the street. mass shootings would still happen. you and i are on the same page there. but not EVERYBODY knows an international arms dealer. if i was mentally ill and i wanted to do something awful, i would have NO IDEA how to obtain an illegal firearm. and i'm not alone! without the ability to purchase high-velocity assault weapons (i'm gonna use that phrase again) these horrific incidents would go down, and i don't think that's disputable. we'll never stop a determined crazy person from doing something evil, but if we can stop some of them and save lives along the way; why wouldn't we? i don't see how that effects your freedoms, and it saves lives.

[Duck07]

Well the problem with your gun point oregontrack is that you can fire off that many rounds with a handgun such as at Virginia Tech so it's rather a moot point whether it's handguns or rifles. Further, the same week Sandy Hook happened a man in China went on a rampage with a machete. Timothy McVeigh used a van and farm supplies. This focus on going after the means of killing rather the underlying causes unless it's a "mental health" issue is absurd. Frankly at a certain level you just have to accept that the only way you can prevent crime is to eliminate all laws.

We have all been poisoned. Fluoride is more dangerous than lead but people vehemently argue to put it in our water. We eat Franken food and are over exposed to electricity and toxic air. We inundate our minds with violent and lewd behavior and glorify it. We have no integrity or values beyond our own vain pursuits. I'm not surprised by this world of ours in the least bit. In fact, considering everything around us, I'd be baffled if it were anything different.

[oregontrack]

i didn't make a distinction between handgun or rifle so i'm not 100% sure where your first sentence is coming from.

but you did bring up a valid point later on. i myself have never understood why we as a nation have a mental health vs. guns mentality. it's seems pretty obvious to me that we have a gun problem and we have a mental heath problem. why is it so hard for both sides to admit that? people aren't getting proper care in this country, and access to unnecessary guns is crazy easy. seems like a pair of issues if i've ever seen 'em. i don't get why we can't try to tackle both, and neither side will budge until their cause wins out.

as for "the only way to prevent crime is to eliminate all laws", sure. that's technically true, but it's also a stupid mindset. if anyone ever says to you "ban all guns, all shootings will end" kick them in the kidney for me. the problem we have is that the left likes to use an argument similar to that, and the right throws up their hands and says, "gun restrictions won't stop all crime, so there's no point doing anything." both sides are RIDICULOUSLY stupid. there's still going to be evil people doing evil things, but consider me confused as to why one side of the aisle is so gung-ho on a do-nothing mindset. okay, okay. i know why they don't want to do anything. but still. if tighter restrictions still allow the fine folks of the NRA to sell guns, and even one mass shooting is prevented because one douche with a bad agenda can't figure out how to get his hands on something... what's the issue again

[Duck07]

i didn't make a distinction between handgun or rifle so i'm not 100% sure where your first sentence is coming from.

but you did bring up a valid point later on. i myself have never understood why we as a nation have a mental health vs. guns mentality. it's seems pretty obvious to me that we have a gun problem and we have a mental heath problem. why is it so hard for both sides to admit that? people aren't getting proper care in this country, and access to unnecessary guns is crazy easy. seems like a pair of issues if i've ever seen 'em. i don't get why we can't try to tackle both, and neither side will budge until their cause wins out.

as for "the only way to prevent crime is to eliminate all laws", sure. that's technically true, but it's also a stupid mindset. if anyone ever says to you "ban all guns, all shootings will end" kick them in the kidney for me. the problem we have is that the left likes to use an argument similar to that, and the right throws up their hands and says, "gun restrictions won't stop all crime, so there's no point doing anything." both sides are RIDICULOUSLY stupid. there's still going to be evil people doing evil things, but consider me confused as to why one side of the aisle is so gung-ho on a do-nothing mindset. okay, okay. i know why they don't want to do anything. but still. if tighter restrictions still allow the fine folks of the NRA to sell guns, and even one mass shooting is prevented because one douche with a bad agenda can't figure out how to get his hands on something... what's the issue again

The first part was about the 45 rounds in a minute, same with throwing McVeigh in there. The mechanism by which you kill someone is NOT the problem. You can do much worse with common farm supplies and the right bit of knowledge. We make guns a scapegoat because we believe we can escape the harsh realities of life, which is really the point of the philosophical "eliminate all laws." Human history is littered with everyday atrocities and we haven't changed. It's no different than the end sexual assault campaigns. All you can do is lessen the conditions from which these symptoms arise but we don't focus on that and the mental health professionals have all bought into the lie and instead treat the symptom as if it's the cause.

Take depression, I believe that if you examine the state of the world and don't feel depressed at all that something is wrong with you. It's funny how doctors take a Hippocratic oath and yet the man was against non plant based medicine!

By and large all of us on here are on the same page, we just have degrees of difference.

[oregontrack]

the interesting thing about timothy mcveigh, lest i be mistaken (note: i have been known to be mistaken from time to time) is that there WAS a government response to the bombing, no? you can't park as close to government buildings anymore, and large amounts of fertilizer are tracked by the gov't. after 9/11, box cutters and all sorts of amenities were banned/monitored and airports became a nightmarish hellscape of TSA insanity. after the shoebomber, we take off our shoes.

airplanes didn't cause 9/11, people did. but we turned the airline industry upside down with changes to make it harder to use an airplane as a weapon. thousands of people die every year due to gun violence, and we're told it's my constitutional right to be shot dead by a crazy person. // shrug

[greenyellow]

So now a senator is complaining that due process is slowing progress on new gun control measures. Who would have thought that protecting certain Constitutional rights was necessary?

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dem-senator- ... right-now/