2016 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - All Politics & Dumb Opinions Here

[TheFrenzy]

"Trump" has 5 letters.

"Haiku" has 5 letters.

[xavieronly1]

Originally Posted by callou2131

I am middle class with 1 kid. My family combined makes a little over 90k a year. In Maryland that is middle class. Under trumps plan, I would save about 8k a year.under Hillary's plan I would pay about 3k more a year. 11k a year is the difference in whether my son goes to a crappy public school or a good charter school.

How about calculate your LAST YEAR tax without using turbotax or any software? I bet you couldn't, and you would have a hard time following the tax code.

Considering none of the tax plans are written into regulation, you are just putting non-sense numbers.

[quackhead]

Originally Posted by fezziwig

This may come as surprise to you, but not everyone at Berkeley -- student or faculty -- is liberal.

John Yoo has been a law professor at Berkeley since the early 1990s. Mr Yoo was a member of the GW Bush administration, and author of the legal opinions used by that administration to justify waterboarding and other violations of the Geneva Convention.

LOL. My point was that Michael Linden works at a liberal organization (Center For American Progress - CAP) and got a masters from a liberal university (Cal), spewing liberal rhetoric about Trumps economic plan. Nothing more, nothing less.

[pac213up]

Originally Posted by Davesportscards

How's that working in Chicago?

Not sure of Chicago but it seemed to work fairly well in Australia.

[pac213up]

I really expected Trump to have a more disciplined and focused approach after the primaries. This last couple of weeks has been one of the worst for any Presidential candidate in a while.

[bradjames12]

Originally Posted by pac213up

Not sure of Chicago but it seemed to work fairly well in Australia.

Fairly well? I mean if you consider an increase in assaults, robbery and rape after the gun ban as working "fairly well" so be it.

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

[babyfaceposey]

Hillary Clinton secret emails reveal aide took orders from outside State Department | Daily Mail Online

I an sure there are many more occasions this has happened. Pay to Play.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by babyfaceposey

Hillary Clinton secret emails reveal aide took orders from outside State Department | Daily Mail Online

I an sure there are many more occasions this has happened. Pay to Play.

I have to say, this election just keeps delivering. I find myself enthralled with all of the crazy media coverage, the rhetoric, the scandal, and now the conspiracy theories! DNC staffer Seth Rich who was murdered is believed to be the DNC emails leak; WikiLeaks offering 5 figures for information on the murder ... just fantastic stuff.

I can't look away.

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by bradjames12

Fairly well? I mean if you consider an increase in assaults, robbery and rape after the gun ban as working "fairly well" so be it.

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

The NCPA is a super-libertarian think tank and the article linked is based on a single source. Gun control has worked incredibly well in Australia.

However, the reason is has reduced gun violence isn't because of the policies per se, but because the MASSIVE gun buyback programs have simply reduced the number of firearms dramatically.

[HillbillyCletus]

Would a revelation of misappropriation of funds by the Clinton Foundation be enough to sway ardent Clinton supporters away from her or nah?

[babyfaceposey]

Originally Posted by HillbillyCletus

Would a revelation of misappropriation of funds by the Clinton Foundation be enough to sway ardent Clinton supporters away from her or nah?

I would think not. I think at this point the fight is for the Independent vote, unless wikileaks has something major up their sleeves.

[TheFrenzy]

Originally Posted by HillbillyCletus

Would a revelation of misappropriation of funds by the Clinton Foundation be enough to sway ardent Clinton supporters away from her or nah?

The thing about Clinton is she represents "baseline" corruption in DC. She's corrupt. She's totally corrupt. But so is literally every other politician within the Belt Line. She's no more corrupt than Romney or Ryan or Bush or Cruz or anyone else.

So it's one of those problems where, if we hold up one standard for Clinton, it also disqualifies almost anyone else on either side.

Now, as bad as corruption is, it hasn't tanked our system and the country still wakes up every day and goes to work. You could think of it like a chronic condition, like having a bad back.

The thing about Trump is he represents a problem that is not chronic, but severe and acute. He's like a ruptured appendix. A ruptured appendix will kill you.

Now, where this election is getting muddled is people want to draw false equivalencies. Both a bad back and a ruptured appendix are "bad"......but they are not "equally bad".

Should people vote for Clinton? I think they should vote Third Party or for a candidate aligned with their conscience. But compared to Trump, voting Clinton is the only rational option among the Big Two.

[NeilCO]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

The thing about Clinton is she represents "baseline" corruption in DC. She's corrupt. She's totally corrupt. But so is literally every other politician within the Belt Line. She's no more corrupt than Romney or Ryan or Bush or Cruz or anyone else.



So it's one of those problems where, if we hold up one standard for Clinton, it also disqualifies almost anyone else on either side.



Now, as bad as corruption is, it hasn't tanked our system and the country still wakes up every day and goes to work. You could think of it like a chronic condition, like having a bad back.



The thing about Trump is he represents a problem that is not chronic, but severe and acute. He's like a ruptured appendix. A ruptured appendix will kill you.



Now, where this election is getting muddled is people want to draw false equivalencies. Both a bad back and a ruptured appendix are "bad"......but they are not "equally bad".



Should people vote for Clinton? I think they should vote Third Party or for a candidate aligned with their conscience. But compared to Trump, voting Clinton is the only rational option among the Big Two.

Well said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clarka3]

normally i would be railing against the status quo in washington, but not like this.


this is a year that Mitt Romney would win handily in the general. I feel like almost any other republican in the primaries could beat Clinton.

[Davesportscards]

Originally Posted by pac213up

Not sure of Chicago but it seemed to work fairly well in Australia.

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

The NCPA is a super-libertarian think tank and the article linked is based on a single source. Gun control has worked incredibly well in Australia.

However, the reason is has reduced gun violence isn't because of the policies per se, but because the MASSIVE gun buyback programs have simply reduced the number of firearms dramatically.

The Australian Institute of Criminology stats say you're both wrong. From 1999-2006 Sexual Assault went up. Right after the Gun Confiscation robberies went up substantially from 1996-2001 per 100,000 residents.

The gun ban DID NOT work in Australia as hoards of people did not turn in their firearms. It's worked so well that in 2007 Australia was ranked 26th in guns per capita out of 178 Countries. Australia's gun ownership has increased to even more than what is was before the 1996 ban. Gun importation has also gone up over the years.

[xavieronly1]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

normally i would be railing against the status quo in washington, but not like this.


this is a year that Mitt Romney would win handily in the general. I feel like almost any other republican in the primaries could beat Clinton.

Except the voters did not make other republicans to win the primary. Trump was not appointed. He was voted.

The same applies to Hillary. If she is this bad, she would be out of the race long ago.

[HBMC]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

The NCPA is a super-libertarian think tank and the article linked is based on a single source. Gun control has worked incredibly well in Australia.

However, the reason is has reduced gun violence isn't because of the policies per se, but because the MASSIVE gun buyback programs have simply reduced the number of firearms dramatically.

Critical thinking time, who would comply with said confiscation (buy back implies that the weapons were the government's in the first place, which is a faulty premise)?

It would be people who are being coerced into forfeiting their right to self defense by the government deciding that the entire populace is at fault for the gun crime of the relative few. Australia's population gap and relative isolation also play a much larger factor to lower gun crime than the confiscation (they don't have a Narco-terrorist state on their Southern Border). Non-sequitors are rhetorically and intellectually bereft of weight, we must uphold objective data and have like comparisons if people's rights are on the chopping block, sensationalized events are not enough of an onus to deny rights.

The entire premise of this thought process follows the fallacious argument that collective punishment not only stops crime, but prevents future crime as well (which would only be marginally affected IMO). This has been proven to not work with regards to drug trafficking, why would it stop gun violence? How many cases do we need to see in a city like Chicago where gun violence is rampant and the repeat or new (like teenagers with pistols) perpetrators are prohibited possessors? The weapons used didn't grow out of the ground, it was bought on the black market, which is nigh untraceable for the Feds and any attempt to infiltrate it nets relatively few criminals each time they do try to clamp down in minority neighborhoods(where much of the rampant gang violence happens, which would be racist right?).

Unless you are advocating an onmipresent police state (which I doubt), this idea will not work. Not only will savvy criminals make their weapons disappear before any confiscation occurs, but millions of people (like me) won't comply out of principle. I refuse to cede my ability to defend my home and loved ones to assuage the misgivings of the utopian fantasies of someone else. Not only is that unfair, it's Anti-American, presuming guilt of people is antithetical to our society.

Violence in any society is a constant, irrespective of race, religion, creed, etc. Failure to recognize this is a failure of objective observational skills.


I can drift into criminal/violent pathology in a brief fashion: If anyone wants to kill someone else, they don't have to get creative, a frying pan would work. A knife, a bat, anything blunt, poison, fire, there's thousands of ways to murder, a firearm happens to be convenient.

[Davesportscards]

Originally Posted by HBMC

Critical thinking time, who would comply with said confiscation (buy back implies that the weapons were the government's in the first place, which is a faulty premise)?

It would be people who are being coerced into forfeiting their right to self defense by the government deciding that the entire populace is at fault for the gun crime of the relative few. Australia's population gap and relative isolation also play a much larger factor to lower gun crime than the confiscation (they don't have a Narco-terrorist state on their Southern Border). Non-sequitors are rhetorically and intellectually bereft of weight, we must uphold objective data and have like comparisons if people's rights are on the chopping block, sensationalized events are not enough of an onus to deny rights.

The entire premise of this thought process follows the fallacious argument that collective punishment not only stops crime, but prevents future crime as well (which would only be marginally affected IMO). This has been proven to not work with regards to drug trafficking, why would it stop gun violence? How many cases do we need to see in a city like Chicago where gun violence is rampant and the repeat or new (like teenagers with pistols) perpetrators are prohibited possessors? The weapons used didn't grow out of the ground, it was bought on the black market, which is nigh untraceable for the Feds and any attempt to infiltrate it nets relatively few criminals each time they do try to clamp down in minority neighborhoods(where much of the rampant gang violence happens, which would be racist right?).

Unless you are advocating an onmipresent police state (which I doubt), this idea will not work. Not only will savvy criminals make their weapons disappear before any confiscation occurs, but millions of people (like me) won't comply out of principle. I refuse to cede my ability to defend my home and loved ones to assuage the misgivings of the utopian fantasies of someone else. Not only is that unfair, it's Anti-American, presuming guilt of people is antithetical to our society.

Violence in any society is a constant, irrespective of race, religion, creed, etc. Failure to recognize this is a failure of objective observational skills.


I can drift into criminal/violent pathology in a brief fashion: If anyone wants to kill someone else, they don't have to get creative, a frying pan would work. A knife, a bat, anything blunt, poison, fire, there's thousands of ways to murder, a firearm happens to be convenient.

Here here!

[NeilCO]

Originally Posted by HBMC

Critical thinking time, who would comply with said confiscation (buy back implies that the weapons were the government's in the first place, which is a faulty premise)?



It would be people who are being coerced into forfeiting their right to self defense by the government deciding that the entire populace is at fault for the gun crime of the relative few. Australia's population gap and relative isolation also play a much larger factor to lower gun crime than the confiscation (they don't have a Narco-terrorist state on their Southern Border). Non-sequitors are rhetorically and intellectually bereft of weight, we must uphold objective data and have like comparisons if people's rights are on the chopping block, sensationalized events are not enough of an onus to deny rights.



The entire premise of this thought process follows the fallacious argument that collective punishment not only stops crime, but prevents future crime as well (which would only be marginally affected IMO). This has been proven to not work with regards to drug trafficking, why would it stop gun violence? How many cases do we need to see in a city like Chicago where gun violence is rampant and the repeat or new (like teenagers with pistols) perpetrators are prohibited possessors? The weapons used didn't grow out of the ground, it was bought on the black market, which is nigh untraceable for the Feds and any attempt to infiltrate it nets relatively few criminals each time they do try to clamp down in minority neighborhoods(where much of the rampant gang violence happens, which would be racist right?).



Unless you are advocating an onmipresent police state (which I doubt), this idea will not work. Not only will savvy criminals make their weapons disappear before any confiscation occurs, but millions of people (like me) won't comply out of principle. I refuse to cede my ability to defend my home and loved ones to assuage the misgivings of the utopian fantasies of someone else. Not only is that unfair, it's Anti-American, presuming guilt of people is antithetical to our society.



Violence in any society is a constant, irrespective of race, religion, creed, etc. Failure to recognize this is a failure of objective observational skills.





I can drift into criminal/violent pathology in a brief fashion: If anyone wants to kill someone else, they don't have to get creative, a frying pan would work. A knife, a bat, anything blunt, poison, fire, there's thousands of ways to murder, a firearm happens to be convenient.

Nobody is trying to take your guns. Relax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mfisher27]

Honest question, do you think all of the "buybacks" in Australia were completely voluntary?

Originally Posted by NeilCO

Nobody is trying to take your guns. Relax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

The thing about Trump is he represents a problem that is not chronic, but severe and acute. He's like a ruptured appendix. A ruptured appendix will kill you.

Why do you think this. I understand this to be the popular opinion of non-Trump supporters but I don't understand why.

What is it that Trump has done that makes you think he represents a ruptured appendix? I feel like for the last year, the media has reported on every single word of Donald Trump, but not his actions. Can't believe he said this, whoa, how can he say that ... but when it comes to what he's accomplished in his lifetime of business; that takes a backseat.

Consider this. I agree w/ you that Trump is an unknown in terms of what he will be able to accomplish, not accomplish, destroy when he becomes President. But I think there are two main points to take away from what we know has already happened, and what is likely to happen.

(1) The President doesn't have the power you suggest he does. He cannot declare war, fire weapons, approve tax plans that will make the nation poor ... the fear of this lone guy blowing up the basic decency of the United States of America is impossible. Yes, relations between Nations could be strained, yes, he could make things more expensive (in terms of goods) because of taxes in and out of the country because of those strained relations and yes, he could make America more hostile simply because of increased economic and racial tensions. But those things are routinely accomplished by every other President. They will effect my life and your life very minimally, if noticed at all.

(2) Look at the Republican primary. 15 would be politicians and two non-politicians went toe to toe debating about policy, history, rhetoric ... and truth be told the end outcome was a landslide. Sanders won more votes and states against Clinton than every other competitor against Trump did combined. Trump spent all of nothing on television ads, and he received every free batch of pub he could get his hands on. Even today, he has still spent a total of nothing on television ads, while Clinton is over $55M, but every station, every day, talks about Trump. It's not always good publicity, but it's always free. Can we agree to give credit here where credit is due, in that without spending much of anything, he's smart enough to know how to manipulate the media?

To me, the former suggests I'm not as terrified as some that Trump will come in and destroy the infrastructure of this country, and the latter suggests this is a guy that knows what he's doing. If you can find it in yourself to look past all of the hot air and bluster, I truly believe Trump to be someone that will do good things for this country.

[discostu]

Originally Posted by NeilCO

Nobody is trying to take your guns. Relax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shhh....don't say that.

It will keep gun stocks and NRA donations stagnant if you repeat it.

The wild ruse that democrats are coming for all of the guns has done wonders for those that created that farce.

Amazing marketing tactic. Pander to mental halfwits who lack basic reading and listening skills.

[NeilCO]

Originally Posted by mfisher27

Honest question, do you think all of the "buybacks" in Australia were completely voluntary?

I do not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ajlaxmn]

Originally Posted by TheFrenzy

The thing about Clinton is she represents "baseline" corruption in DC. She's corrupt. She's totally corrupt. But so is literally every other politician within the Belt Line. She's no more corrupt than Romney or Ryan or Bush or Cruz or anyone else.

So it's one of those problems where, if we hold up one standard for Clinton, it also disqualifies almost anyone else on either side.

Now, as bad as corruption is, it hasn't tanked our system and the country still wakes up every day and goes to work. You could think of it like a chronic condition, like having a bad back.

The thing about Trump is he represents a problem that is not chronic, but severe and acute. He's like a ruptured appendix. A ruptured appendix will kill you.

Now, where this election is getting muddled is people want to draw false equivalencies. Both a bad back and a ruptured appendix are "bad"......but they are not "equally bad".

Should people vote for Clinton? I think they should vote Third Party or for a candidate aligned with their conscience. But compared to Trump, voting Clinton is the only rational option among the Big Two.

I agree.


Still we know what Clinton has done, all Trump has done is shot his mouth off (for the most part) as a previous has pointed out.

Hillary was voted by the people, Trump was. This really should be Bernie and Trump, and I would have no worries about Trump winning as Hillary supporters would back Bernie, unlike Bernie supporters who are not backing Hillary as quickly.

[HBMC]

Originally Posted by NeilCO

Nobody is trying to take your guns. Relax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anyone, I repeat, anyone who entertains an Australian style confiscation is not a believer in the 2nd Amendment, period, full stop.

This same individual (HilRod) has also spoken repeatedly about trying to get the Heller case reversed, which was a critical case with regards to the rights of individual to defend themselves in their own homes. The same goes for the McDonald case in Chicago.

I don't need to relax, I need the American people to quit listening to the demagogues in DC and the media. All of the gun control measures proposed won't stop crime, it's a matter of rational fact.