2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

I am a bit confused. I'm not a great expert on the Trump thing, but I think he actually does have some policies. I mean, he can't have none because that just doesn't make sense.

Just by googling Trump's Policies I came up with these:

Immigration

Abortion

Gun Control

Foreign Policy


Taxes

Gay Marriage

Health Care

Economy and Jobs

Civil Liberties

Crime and Safety

Environment

Education

Budget and Spending

National Security

Medicare and Social Security

Veterans

Energy

I'm not for either, but It would bug me if I didn't mention that saying there are no policies or stances on his part is incorrect. There are policies that he has explained or stated throughout his campaign, and the same can be said of Hillary. A fair coverage of both is needed to remain bipartisan (I'd rather a used stick of deodorant wins, but I might be the only one here that would vote for Teen Spirit).

Clinton

Immigration


Abortion


Guns


Foreign Policy


Taxes


Gay Marriage


Health Care


Economy and Jobs


Civil Liberties


Crime and Safety


Environment


Education


Budget and Spending


National Security


Medicare and Social Security


Veterans


Energy


Now, again, I know Clinton and her firearm policy is utter garbage and if you think it did anything to stem the tide of blood, you are dead wrong. Some of the highest murder counts with firearms are handguns and the 'common sense' ban in 1994 didn't see a considerable drop and murders involving guns were at their highest point since the mid '80s. So bollocks on that.

Her abortion policies are the worst of the two. I'm not saying Trump is right on abortion, but I think that if you want me to pay for your anti-baby pills than I have the inherent right to look and see what the hell is going on behind the curtain. You do not get to have the government control an item regarding pills or healthcare and say that I have to pay and I don't get to see for what my money is being used towards, does that make sense?

If you don't want kids, I know a surefire way 100% to not get pregnant. Don't bang. If you can't find something else to do besides smoosh your genitals together or take responsible action, why must I then suffer financially for your poor judgment or actions? Life shouldn't work that way. I am free and willing to pay for rad-pills, heart pills, laser beam research etc. but I do not see the reason why I should pay for contraceptives, lube, condoms, sex pills, spermicides etc. when I'm not getting any or its not my responsibility to watch you 24/7 to make sure you don't get pregnant or impregnate someone else. That isn't to say that imminent death or forced pregnancy shouldn't be handled by the state. Life and death then becomes a legal issue by the state.

I found it interesting that Clinton made no mention of moving back coporate jobs back to the US. It is a problem that we've seen and it's beginning to increase. She might have something in there about raising incentives to not move your business but I'm not so sure, could someone find that for me?

I did like Trump's policy on the Environment if I interpreted it correctly. Besides, the EPA doesn't have the best track record of all time and should go under heavy reform. "The [New York] air is perfectly safe [to breathe]" - EPA, September 18, 2001. Bringing them to heel would probably be a good thing, as they've been mothballed for quite some time, and need an overhaul. That isn't to say that 500,000,000 solar panels doesn't sound appealing...

I don't like Trump's patriot act restoration idea, however. I never liked it to begin with, but if there is something similar where you can then request immediate assistance through the proper channels to receive wire taps and the like for suspected terrorist plots, then I'd support it. Bush's policies were so holey it was worse than swiss cheese... its not for spying on regular citizens. Shame on the NSA for that.

Both policies regarding veterans. I can't remember a single candidate that said that they wouldn't help veterans, but given Clinton's track scores, I'd like to think Trump has a better idea for it, as much as it pains me to say it. Clinton has shown me her scaly backside and shown us that 'security' is the last thing on her plate of list of things to do. Veterans included. It may or may not be true, but I still don't trust her as far as I can throw her.

Again: Both candidates bring up education as important and that children are the best bet for the future. Which candidate has not?

You see, this is where I get upset. Both sides think they're right, but you clearly miss the point where they both say the exact same thing. Obama wanted education first and foremost. From personal experience with the school districts down here, I know that somewhere down the line some kids and faculty were left behind to eat the dust.

So there, both candidates short hand policies in one post. If I could tell you the Policies of a burnt piece of toast running for office, I would, but I don't speak crumb. Can anyone link me to the sources of Burnt Toast's domestic policies? I'd very much appreciate it.

#Toast2016

RE: people banging

people will bang regardless of what we tell them to do. In light of this, providing subsidised birth control will help keep the costs of unwanted and poorly raised children down. This is going to sound a bit elitist, but what do you think costs more: having somebody's birth control subsidised for about $300 a year for about 30 years or having someone born who might be poorly educated and poorly raised for 70+ years?

Kind of a tangent now, but I think birth control should only be subsidised by the government with needs testing. If you can afford $300 or so a year, I don't that would justify a subsidy. It's not really an urgent medical need.

Kanzler said:

RE: people banging

people will bang regardless of what we tell them to do. In light of this, providing subsidised birth control will help keep the costs of unwanted and poorly raised children down. This is going to sound a bit elitist, but what do you think costs more: having somebody's birth control subsidised for about $300 a year for about 30 years or having someone born who might be poorly educated and poorly raised for 70+ years?

Kind of a tangent now, but I think birth control should only be subsidised by the government with needs testing. If you can afford $300 or so a year, I don't that would justify a subsidy. It's not really an urgent medical need.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's true [people banging]. It leads down a further path that gets pretty muddy and bloody along the way. Its second to only gun control in terms of buzz.

If it were up to me, it'd be placed solely on the initiating party's shoulders, and not mine. Their 2 minutes of fun does not constitute and emergency on my part. Of course, several policies, rules, laws, constituencies need re-writing and reseting.

So all of it, basically. One side is wrong for one reason and the other side is wrong for other reasons but people pass the opportunity to say that both sides are wrong for the same reasons. Placing responsibility on the parent might not be a popular opinion, and I'd rather pay to terminate it rather than pay for drugs... I'd rather not pay at all, to be honest, but my main point was that I deserve the right to choose [vote] how things go down if they really want the government subsidies for their preggo pills. You can't take someone's money and expect them to not wonder or inquire where their money went. That's just what I believe. It's like a phishing scam for your cash but you don't see any returns (informations) until way later, "only until after I free up my millions of doallars in bannannnas assests ind the carrubing republick, 4 moasdt certdinly".

So is it fair to say that I get to at least vote on whether or not they spring for ribbed or just plain rubbers? I don't think it's too much to ask to see a list of expenses just like every other funded institution, right?

Im all for reduced government spending, but as Kanzler pointed out, subsidized birth control isn't that bad of an investment. Poorly raised children are more likely to become criminals, which are much more of a burden on society than the birth control.

If you really want to reduce illegitimate or poorly raised children without abortion or subsidized birth control, you will need a cultural change. It would probably have to be conservative- rejecting promiscuity, sex outside marriage, and promoting strict family values.

I think you should note the level of detail rather than the actual ideas themselves because what you've given for Trump is the actual policies as they're written mostly, while all of Clinton is just direct quotes about her policies.

There's a fairly large distinction, and ignoring Trump's constant flip-flop on the vast majority of those points you have to notice that way too many are just ignorantly stupid.

"I'll redo all our deals with other countries so they're better for us" "I'll get the jobs back from China" "I'll repeal gay marriage" all of them are... objectively bad? Cherrypicking the few that "sound reasonable" doesn't really change this VS Clinton's better policies overall.

Clinton makes no mention of "bringing back" corporate jobs (? Do you mean manual labour ones like steel working because that's what Trump is talking about and i don't think the US is even noticeably shrinking in corporate jobs, I'm assuming you do) because there's no real way to bring those jobs "back" when it's cheaper to have them done overseas- no amount of government influence can change that.

And really, any presidential candidate who threatens to invalidate the marriages of huge swathes of people, with a vice presidential pick who advocates equivocal torture against said group really should not be coming as close to office as this bumbling fool has

BadSheep said:

If you really want to reduce illegitimate or poorly raised children without abortion or subsidized birth control, you will need a cultural change. It would probably have to be conservative- rejecting promiscuity, sex outside marriage, and promoting strict family values.

Click to expand...

It should be noted that this actually just creates MORE illegitimate children, underage pregnancy and unwanted pregnancies than fully informational sex ed and open access to birth control, the facts are that the US states that try that have the highest rates of all those things as well as STIs

"Preserving Medicare & Social Security" sounds great. I'm going to make a policy proposal saying "Making people happy" and run for President. After all, people like being happy, right?

"Killing NAFTA and cutting jobs from China" sounds wonderful, except for the fine print where doing so would increase costs of day-to-day goods up to 60% for the people with lower income. The solution is giving direct economic help to manual labourers who lost their jobs or retraining them, not forcing the rest of consumers (and especially the ones with lower incomes) to essentially subsidize them through inflated prices in most goods. If you are going to force some subsidy, at the very least do it through taxes, which are better distributed. Not to mention that the future of the US certainly is NOT manufacturing jobs, seeing how the output of the US is on its highest level in history thanks to robotisation. Forcing manufacturing companies to come back to the US might cause increased prices but yield no new works as factories use robots anyway. Or is Trump going to force companies to use only 60s machinery?

"Ending the EPA restrictions" and "Using coal and shale gas" doesn't exactly sound like "good for environment". In fact, it sounds kind of the opposite: more CO2, more climate change, sorry kids your world is careening towards utter destruction- but think of the current miners who need to keep their jobs! And maybe if you close your eyes and your ears hard enough and start screaming "It's all a conspiration by evil sciencers, God won't allow anything bad to happen to the planet!", maybe climate change will cease to exist magically! Maybe.

"Create high-paying jobs to bring growth to our stagnant economy, reducing deficits and spending." "Give candy to all children all the time". Oh, by the way, you forgot to mention this part:

- Trump promising to cut taxes for the rich up to $1 million for people making more than $3.75m a year, which would cause the debt to soar by 7.2tn over 10 years; whereas Clinton wants to raise taxes for people making over $143k a year, up to $800k for the people making over 3.75m, which would cause the debt to fall by 1.6tn over 10 years (source: Tax Policy Centre)

In fact, this is Trump's tax plan. Look at this box:



The top 1% would increase their available cash by 17.5%! The top 0.1% would get a cheque worth $1,302,887 every year! Meanwhile the bottom 20% would get a boost of 1%, or $128 a year.

Not to mention that the massive budget imbalance would force massive cuts in all sorts of expenditures- and since he's going to "rebuild the military" and "keep Medicare intact", then he'd have to cut every other single program accross the country. Like food stamps, unemployment subsides, education funds- everything. Either that, or cause the country to go bankrupt from massive debt.

Aliencommander1245 said:

It should be noted that this actually just creates MORE illegitimate children, underage pregnancy and unwanted pregnancies than fully informational sex ed and open access to birth control, the facts are that the US states that try that have the highest rates of all those things as well as STIs

Click to expand...

I think you haven't really considered what he's saying.

Kanzler said:

I think you haven't really considered what he's saying.

Click to expand...

No, i understand that he's saying that a complete cultural shift to that method of thinking would be required to make it work (Although i kind of feel like the laws & culture of a US state are close enough to be comparable) but i'm disagreeing and saying even in a culture like that there'd still be higher amounts of intercourse going on with way less information about it

As much as I don't like Hillary, I've come to a , very reluctant, "I'm with her" stance. I realise now that we can't just rapidly change the corrupt system that she's the current face of. It's better the devil you know than the devil you don't I guess, especially with Trump. I can no longer play devils advocate and express an equal footing view between them.

Aliencommander1245 said:

... but i'm disagreeing and saying even in a culture like that there'd still be higher amounts of intercourse going on with way less information about it

Click to expand...

I'm not advocating for the removal of Sexual Education from schools, far from it. The two programs could not be further apart from each other in terms of area of content, one being placed on the shoulders of general education and the other being placed upon the medical side of things. The medical side is not as responsible for educating kids on how to behave or act to prevent STDs and the like. I would propose a furthing in education and a separate teacher for such things. Leaving Sex Ed to some poor guy in his 30s isn't probably the best idea, considering he majored in sciences and maths for example. Teaching 12 year olds about all the ins and outs of the stuff is not the most desirable job to have and can even evoke fear in several educators around the country. Not everyone is comfortable talking to children about their funny junk and getting them to actually listen to you is a roll of the dice. I agree, however, that a massive overhaul of the system is needed to better combat child pregnancy.

I did not cherry pick quotes or general ides. I used google and entered: Trump's/Clinton's policies and those were the results. I was merely explaining that the argument that Trump has no policies is an incorrect stance. If someone were to take the same stance on Clinton it would be just as ridiculous. If you didn't like what they had to say (google), that isn't really my fault and it's completely out of my control. Whether or not they chose to use direct quotes or small summaries is not up to me.

Again, I am not advocating Trump or Clinton. Trump is new and Clinton is a political mess as far as I've seen her operate. Besides her lame track record previously as Secretary of State, she's shown a knack for lying on the fly and she been lying for decades. It doesn't help that the media brushes her misdeeds under the rug but continue to talk about Trump's "Grab them by the pussy" comment. In what land is "Grab them by the Pussy" news for two weeks? Take it and move on. I don't like most of the news that spills out, because of such skewed coverage. Pussy is not a news story.

Does all of this mean I can't point at certain policies of both and say "I like this, but hate that"? I can't do that? Even though I've made it clear I want Toast for president? Don't be ridiculous (more than a few have labeled me as such). I don't like Clinton at all.

I think that I have the right to look at "The better choice" and scoff in disbelief. If you were to tell me that if any other candidate had the chance, you'd still vote for Hillary? Trump is a side note, and being new isn't the best thing for a seat, right? So Clinton remains the political choice, but is one of the most sneaky, lying, snaky, creatures around. There is no "better of the two". If you're being shot in the face pointblank with Slug or 00 Buck it makes no difference and no one would say "Being shot in the face by 00 Buck is the better of the two" being shot in the face is bad.

Having these kinds of choices is bad. I don't agree with all of either candidate's policies and if you say that you do, you're either a lying liar or liar that's lying. I've already stated before that the 'feel good' policies aren't worth much. Education, Veterans, Medicaid, Healthcare... no candidate ever has said that "we need worse health care, poor education and that we need to treat our veterans like garbage" never in the history of anyone ever said that. Bringing up the feel good policies doesn't even mean much, is what I'm getting at. There are always a lot of ideas that get left behind during this stage. I doubt Hillary or Trump will make the VA speed up any faster, and I'm still waiting on some care from them that I started back in May.

I don't trust either. Prattling on about Trump this or Trump that boggles me. Let's all just ignore the fact that both sides are the equivalent of bleach and you're chugging a gallon of Splash-less Clorox with a smile on your face as you point and laugh and talk bad to those that buy the regular Splashy Clorox. Neither side realizes that they're drinking fucking bleach, though. I don't know why you're not as outraged at both as I am. I feel that Clinton torpedoed Sanders through backstabbing and double dealing and I hope she loses, but that means that Trump wins, so I still lose. You see what I'm saying?

So Trump isn't fit to become president. Okay, gotcha there and I understand. But Clinton isn't either. That's what makes them both bad. Either or will not make a better nation, savvy?

Let me paint you an ugly picture: Clinton wants to get rid of all the guns in the country that are legally registered to law abiding citizens. Now, I may not be the biggest proponent for the Second Amendment, but I think that going against the Constitution qualifies as a serious violation. Without arguing semantics on whether or not long rifles or hunting rifles etc. if you take away every single legal weapon in the United States, this leaves only the criminals with the weapons. Defensive firearm use is a thing, and claiming that it isn't is no excuse to create false facts or poor arguments against the things.

Further more, if one of the candidates said that they wanted to restrict the religious freedoms or freedoms of speech, then wouldn't that be grounds for dismissal? I understand that you don't like guns, but I can guarantee you that 100% of all crimes committed with firearms are committed by criminals.

What works for one country does not work for others. What if I began complaining that Europe's crime rate is too high? That they need to look to Norway for advice? Don't be dense. Cultural and geographical differences prevent such easy fixes and no one ever will find a correct fix and you'll probably die of old age before anyone submits an acceptable proposal.

You're caught in between a rock and a hard place, and denying it is a strange denial process that I might just never fully understand. Maybe you have good reasons for backing Hillary. Maybe you have good reason to back Trump? But don't instantly take my opinion of 'cherry picking' ideas and Policies from both candidates as backing either of them. I've been repeating myself multiple times and it's starting to get extremely old and I feel like I'm trying to explain life to a 7th grader because of it. I know we're all better than this. I choose to not back either, because it's stupid.

#Toast2016

BadSheep said:

Are you aren't being descriptive at all. You keep saying "these groups," "these conspirators," these "anti-government groups." Provide examples, prove that they support Trump, and are relevant enough to be a threat. And prove they are violent.

Anti-government groups do not support Trump. Most anarchists despise Trump, and the few that do, do not want a violent end to the state. I can explain this in more detail if you want because I know this particular community very well.

And if these people are so anti-government and violent, why would they care if democracy is subverted if they do not believe in it? If they are violent, why would they support the government system that showboats its peaceful achievements?

Click to expand...

There are a lot of different shades of anti-government and, you're right, I should have tried to differentiate and be specific.

There are the people who aren't officially part of any organized group who are generally distrustful/dissatisfied/jaded with the whole of the political process and may not have engaged in politics/voting before. They probably make up a large percentage of Trump's supporters. Anecdotally I'll say that the interviews I've seen various news groups do with random people at Trump rallies gives me a strong impression that "these groups" (people at Trump rallies) have a bad impression of politics, politicians, and government. Right-wring politics in general is very big on "small government" in the first place. They also seem to have an extreme hatred for Clinton which goes beyond normal levels of disagreement with politics and I would characterize it as overall fairly sexist and misogynistic.

Then there are other groups like the KKK, the American Nazi Party, and similarly related nationalist or white-supremacist groups. Generally, these groups are violent or spout violent messages as parts of their core beliefs. For many of them Trump is a good candidate and Trump has only disavowed David Duke specifically and none of the hate groups generally or their ideas, despite these groups stating that they see Trump as supporting their goals in some way. He gives them tacit approval by his silence, which has helped to normalize, to an extent, their involvement in a major political party for this election. Trump is such a deflector and dissembler that when he says something about Muslims, Mexicans, black people, or when he's caught admitting to assaulting women, people don't know if he really means any of it. That is dangerous because people who want to believe he means it (as in hate groups or people sympathetic to these hate groups) become his supporters because they think "Finally, someone running for office who'll represent me."

In other words, one of the reasons Trump has so many followers who've never engaged in politics before is because these people's personal politics were so outside the norm that they've never had a such a large scale voice before.

The violence at several of Trump's rallies should also point to the danger of his supporters being violent again if properly motivated or prompted. And his recent calls that the election is rigged might be the biggest prod he's given yet.

So you've got this mix of racism with sexism in a permissive environment and you've allowed people with violent ideologies to intermingle with your other supporters. That, I think, it dangerous and could lead to violence if Trump loses.

JDJacket said:

Let me paint you an ugly picture: Clinton wants to get rid of all the guns in the country that are legally registered to law abiding citizens.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this is a hypothetical situation you're describing since a lot of people do believe Clinton and/or government want to take away everyone's guns, but she has stated that this is not something that she intends to do. Ignoring all the arguments about the effectiveness of gun control (because that's a whole other thread topic) she has stated in public that she supports the 2nd Amendment. Are we to assume that anything and everything she says might be a lie and proceed as if they were? That seems a dangerous mindset to take because anything she says is either the truth (if you think it makes her look bad) or a lie (if it looks worse for her to have the opposite view ~in secret~).

I remember how Obama was going to step all over the Second Amendment and confiscate all guns. It just shows how much of a failure he is that now there are more guns than when he started taking them all away and now Clinton has to come and take them all away. I hope she gets the job done before the NRA and friends accuse every following Democratic presidential candidate of "wanting to take away all guns" until the end of all time.

Esper said:

I'm not sure if this is a hypothetical situation you're describing since a lot of people do believe Clinton and/or government want to take away everyone's guns, but she has stated that this is not something that she intends to do. Ignoring all the arguments about the effectiveness of gun control (because that's a whole other thread topic) she has stated in public that she supports the 2nd Amendment. Are we to assume that anything and everything she says might be a lie and proceed as if they were? That seems a dangerous mindset to take because anything she says is either the truth (if you think it makes her look bad) or a lie (if it looks worse for her to have the opposite view ~in secret~).

Click to expand...

Given the fact that the '94 ban was enacted and supported by her, it's the antithesis of supporting the 2nd amendment. I don't know whether or not what she says in private will be put into practice, but the 'common sense' gun laws she supports are completely ineffective. So whether or not it's hypothetical or not is up for debate. She supports a full on ban of 'assault weapons' despite most states outlawing fully automatic weapons already, which doesn't mean much when some punks do a drive by with TEC-9s they bought from some back-alley arms dealer.

If you actually look into the common sense laws themselves it will soon become apparent that they are ineffective and worthless, which is why they were never renewed when the time came. It isn't a question of if, because we've seen them before and know how it works and the common sense laws do not work. Gun control is always the hottest topic and banning firearms for 'looking dangerous' i.e. a semi automatic .22LR AR but keeping the .308 semi-auto M1 Garande because it has wood makes no sense, not common sense.

She's stated she supports 'common sense' gun laws, which point to her opposition to the 2nd amendment, not support of it. So is she two faced? Probably. Lying? Maybe. Common sense? Not really.

Here's what Obama's administration put out not too long ago:

Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation. The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. In fact, the number of these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900 applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014. ATF is finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.

Click to expand...

I would like to point out that 'Sawed Off' Shotguns are not sold. At all. It's incorrect to call a short-barreled shotgun a 'sawed off' shotgun, and what's more, hacksaws are available nationwide and no one keeps track of those sales. Serbu Firearms manufactures the shortest shotgun that I've seen, and this is their policy for ordering them:

*This product must be transferred through a federally licensed Class 3 firearms dealer and requires federal registration under the national firearms act of 1934. Please see our NFA Ordering page for information on this process. There is a $250 per gun non-refundable deposit on all SUPER-SHORTY orders.

Click to expand...

Illegal to purchase? No, but only in states restricting such purchase, and you must purchase one from a dealer that's licensed. Find me the manufacturer that delivers guns by mail to your door and I'll show you a criminal.

I brought up the TEC-9. Clipping the firing pin or illegally modifying the weapon does not count as a machine gun purchase. Machine guns manufactured after '86 are not vetted, and are illegal to own unless they are vetted, or you are a licensed dealer with a note from the police.

These are the laws she supports and wishes to impose. There is a lot of hot air and lots of nonsense held within them. I may not like gun violence, but I know that banning something doesn't make it 'go away'. Look at marijuana use. Up until recently, it was illegal to even posses, no? Did people still manage to get it? Yup. Does that make sense?

We're not talking about placing restrictions on felons, because they cannot own any firearm whatsoever and it is a felony for them to do so. I'd like to point you to the thread I made regarding the shooting of two police officers in Palm Springs, where a felon possessed an illegal firearm. In response to this, California is of the opinion that even tighter laws and restrictions are needed regardless of how the felon obtained the weapon.

To me, these laws [common sense] are just as bad, if not worse, than the war on drug laws. They spin wheels in the mud and not much else. They make legal citizens out to be the bad guy and ignore the fact that the actual bad guy bought his gun from an illegal dealer not sanctioned by the state. Does that make sense?

If you have any questions regarding firearms I'm happy to oblige.

JDJacket said:

snip

Click to expand...

I believe that the gun law you're referring to (the national assault weapons ban of '94) did not get renewed because of opposition from (primarily) Republican lawmakers who in 2004 had control of the national government. They had their reasoning, but Republican-controlled governments don't generally enact gun control laws. (Incidentally, I think it's misleading to say that it didn't work since it had such a small purview legally speaking that it was never going to make a dramatic impact one way or another.)

Regarding "common sense" gun control, if you think that any gun control is antithetical to the 2nd Amendment then I guess I can't really convince you otherwise, but I will say that a person can say they support the 2nd Amendment and still want reasonable restrictions on gun ownership/use without being a hypocrite or liar. It's not unlike how we have reasonable restrictions on many things like, for instance, the 1st Amendment (the classic: yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) and yet we wouldn't consider a person who agrees with that restriction an opponent of the 1st Amendment.

Esper said:

Regarding "common sense" gun control, if you think that any gun control is antithetical to the 2nd Amendment then I guess I can't really convince you otherwise, but I will say that a person can say they support the 2nd Amendment and still want reasonable restrictions on gun ownership/use without being a hypocrite or liar. It's not unlike how we have reasonable restrictions on many things like, for instance, the 1st Amendment (the classic: yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) and yet we wouldn't consider a person who agrees with that restriction an opponent of the 1st Amendment.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that all gun control is bad, far from it. The common sense laws, however, ban several weapons that make no sense to ban. I gave the .22LR rifle being banned due to polymers and the .308 being able to be sold and traded due to wood. There is no significant drop or decrease in firearm deaths for the Common Sense laws to be reintroduced. Machine guns are banned, sawed off shotguns are banned, each state has the ability to control their own specific laws, so an executive order banning firearms from legal citizens is not acceptable and in opposition to the 2nd amendment.

I've already said that felons shouldn't have guns, they are not allowed to have guns, and (I didn't say this) but in order to own a handgun or firearm you are required to have a photo identification present and for handguns most, if not all, states require you to own a handgun license permit. I am opposed to laws that are ineffective and useless. Someone else here brought up a good point about other tools being used to murder others, and about 50% of all firearm homicides are gang related, which is a huge chunk. Now, is gun control good? Yes, to a degree, just like every single law ever put into place. It isn't a clear cut black and white position and I don't much appreciate being lumped into the crazy crowd saying all gun control is bad.

I'm simply stating that the common sense laws, make no sense. Now, these laws are an addition to the current laws in place, not the law itself. I've stated that machine guns are illegal and felons are not allowed access to firearms at all. I agree with this. How is this coming off as "all gun control is bad"? I'm confused. I like laws that work, and the common sense laws do not work. The murder rate involving firearms spiked in the mid to late '90s involving firearms, taking into account that nearly 50% of all firearm related deaths are gang related and you have one big conundrum on your hands. How'd the criminals get the guns? Why are the gang members able to get them? How? When? Where is the paperwork? You see what I'm trying to say? It's not that all gun control is bad, but some controls and limits put in place do not work. This doesn't even take the drastic changes from state law to state law. If you have two homes, one in California and one in Oregon, you can maintain a much larger reserve or collection of firearms despite being a resident in two states.

Without clear and precise goals, the common sense laws fall apart. They haven't worked, and people continue to say that they do so much. It's not too far of a stretch to say that the ban didn't work considering the firearm murder rate climbed soon after the ban.

Esper said:

There are a lot of different shades of anti-government and, you're right, I should have tried to differentiate and be specific.

There are the people who aren't officially part of any organized group who are generally distrustful/dissatisfied/jaded with the whole of the political process and may not have engaged in politics/voting before. They probably make up a large percentage of Trump's supporters. Anecdotally I'll say that the interviews I've seen various news groups do with random people at Trump rallies gives me a strong impression that "these groups" (people at Trump rallies) have a bad impression of politics, politicians, and government. Right-wring politics in general is very big on "small government" in the first place. They also seem to have an extreme hatred for Clinton which goes beyond normal levels of disagreement with politics and I would characterize it as overall fairly sexist and misogynistic.

Then there are other groups like the KKK, the American Nazi Party, and similarly related nationalist or white-supremacist groups. Generally, these groups are violent or spout violent messages as parts of their core beliefs. For many of them Trump is a good candidate and Trump has only disavowed David Duke specifically and none of the hate groups generally or their ideas, despite these groups stating that they see Trump as supporting their goals in some way. He gives them tacit approval by his silence, which has helped to normalize, to an extent, their involvement in a major political party for this election. Trump is such a deflector and dissembler that when he says something about Muslims, Mexicans, black people, or when he's caught admitting to assaulting women, people don't know if he really means any of it. That is dangerous because people who want to believe he means it (as in hate groups or people sympathetic to these hate groups) become his supporters because they think "Finally, someone running for office who'll represent me."

In other words, one of the reasons Trump has so many followers who've never engaged in politics before is because these people's personal politics were so outside the norm that they've never had a such a large scale voice before.

The violence at several of Trump's rallies should also point to the danger of his supporters being violent again if properly motivated or prompted. And his recent calls that the election is rigged might be the biggest prod he's given yet.

So you've got this mix of racism with sexism in a permissive environment and you've allowed people with violent ideologies to intermingle with your other supporters. That, I think, it dangerous and could lead to violence if Trump loses.

Click to expand...

Okay I dont know how to do any of that fancy stuff people do with quotes, so yea lol.

First, a slight critique. Right-Wing politics is not just small government. There are many authoritarian right-wing ideologies, such as Neo-Conservatism, National Capitalism, Right-wing Fascism, and Ultra Capitalism. Neo-Conservatism is the most prominent with many neocons in the Republican party today. Other right-wing ideologies are middle of the road. Like PaleoConservatism and the Tea Party.

Do you have statistics for your first claim that a "large percentage of Trump supporters have not engaged in the political process." And that is is large enough to contain enough people that would commit violence.

To say Trump is the only candidate with racist followers his false. And its false to say he is the only racist candidate...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/
https://youtu.be/ryweuBVJMEA <- Hillary saying some very nice things about Robert Byrd
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/justin...cist-remarks-made-by-clinton-in-1994-n2210393 <hillary called blacks "super predators"
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8687/video-proof-seven-instances-hillarys-clintons-john-nolte#

Violence was incited at Trump rallies (this article also proves Trump lies)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-clinton-and-obama-caused-violence-his-r/

You still aren't giving examples of violent ideologies, or that people are following them. Or statistics on racism and sexism among supporters. Or that these sentiments would lead to violence.

Aliencommander1245 said:

No, i understand that he's saying that a complete cultural shift to that method of thinking would be required to make it work (Although i kind of feel like the laws & culture of a US state are close enough to be comparable) but i'm disagreeing and saying even in a culture like that there'd still be higher amounts of intercourse going on with way less information about it

Click to expand...

Yeah, but he didn't suggest that there would be less sex ed with a more conservative culture. People can be highly educated about sex and still have very conservative values. I don't see how that would lead to the higher amounts of intercourse that you claim.

BadSheep said:

Okay I dont know how to do any of that fancy stuff people do with quotes, so yea lol.

First, a slight critique. Right-Wing politics is not just small government. There are many authoritarian right-wing ideologies, such as Neo-Conservatism, National Capitalism, Right-wing Fascism, and Ultra Capitalism. Neo-Conservatism is the most prominent with many neocons in the Republican party today. Other right-wing ideologies are middle of the road. Like PaleoConservatism and the Tea Party.

Do you have statistics for your first claim that a "large percentage of Trump supporters have not engaged in the political process." And that is is large enough to contain enough people that would commit violence.

To say Trump is the only candidate with racist followers his false. And its false to say he is the only racist candidate...
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/
https://youtu.be/ryweuBVJMEA <- Hillary saying some very nice things about Robert Byrd
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/justin...cist-remarks-made-by-clinton-in-1994-n2210393 <hillary called blacks "super predators"
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8687/video-proof-seven-instances-hillarys-clintons-john-nolte#

Violence was incited at Trump rallies (this article also proves Trump lies)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-clinton-and-obama-caused-violence-his-r/

You still aren't giving examples of violent ideologies, or that people are following them. Or statistics on racism and sexism among supporters. Or that these sentiments would lead to violence.

Click to expand...

I don't have statistics on hand, but pretty much every media outlet of any kind has said that Trump is pulling in people who beforehand didn't really get involved in politics and that's the kind of thing that people interviewed at Trump rallies say about themselves.

Claiming you support Clinton because of an unproven "hidden agenda" is not the same thing as supporting Trump for what Trump has said in public. Nor is claiming that your hate group has given her money when you can't prove it. Furthermore, Clinton has apologized for the remarks she has made in the past regarding "super predators" - something that happened 20 years ago - which might still be bad, but it's not as bad as saying Mexicans are rapists just last year. And her support for BLM is not racist unless you think BLM is some kind of racist hate group and even if you believe that BLM is "secretly" a hate group their outward messages are nothing of the kind, compared to the outward messaging you get from actual hate groups.

Re: violence, Trump has said things at his rallies like black protesters should be roughed up. He was most likely talking about the immediate protesters at the time, but even if that were all it's still pretty bad and the message it sends is that violence is okay. Compare this to the instance when John McCain was running against Obama and some nut at an event said to him that Obama was a Muslim and so on and McCain stopped her right there and said no, he's just a man I happen to disagree with.

Do I really have to provide sources about the KKK, white supremacists, and neo-nazis being violent?

And do I have to have statistics about sexism when there are people still supporting Trump after it's come out that he's assaulted multiple women? Everyone dropped Cosby like he was poison after the same thing was revealed about him, but somehow people are sticking with Trump anyway.

Here's a thing about the hate groups supporting Trump. It includes many links throughout the article backing up the individual points.

I want to add that the president of the united states is the most powerful single person in the world as far as the influence of soft-power goes. If Trump wins, it validates separatist/nationalistic policy like Brexit and the rejection of humanitarianism/collectivism resolutions like the Farc Peace resolution to the rest of the world. Trump accessed a core of Americans who want to have complete cultural hegemony over their national territory, despite how dangerous, isolating, and oppressive of those systems of ideology like sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, queerphobia, ect,ect,ect. Peace and stability are increased as the more voices that influence identity and consciousness of all people. Certainly voices are tied to capital, but at the same time, we as people are influenced by more people, who are more diverse when we build our consciousness, attitudes, and identities.

Patriarchy vs Matriarchy
Sexism vs Feminism
Reinforce Racial Hierarchy vs Move toward Post-racial Society (we have a LONG ways to go)
Winning (zero-sum game) vs Winning (coalition building, not a zero-sum game)
Isolationism vs Globalism
Walls vs "open-boarders"
Xenophobic Fear-Mongering vs Cosmopolitanism
National Greatness vs International Cooperation
Dominance of in-group speech vs protection of out-group speech

Think past the policy positions, but the actually influence of ideas that the POTUS has and how it impacts power-relations internationally. Do you really feel safer with Trump. I feel much safer with Clinton and the massive feminist and socialist pressure put on her by Bernie Sanders in the primary process. Think about how for the first time in centuries, if not millennia, that a woman is the most powerful/influential person on the consciousness of humankind. Certainly she has had to survive and thrive in a masculine institution and as a result has some dominating attributes we associate with male virtue, but at the same time, she has a double bind to adhere to gendered expectations as a "compassionate" and "passive" woman. Certainly her gender expresses itself in an androgynous way with rhetoric that is tough yet compassionate and protective rather than dominant or passive. Certainly I would like the most powerful person to be even more progressive, but I think Clinton in some ways is a safer choice than Sanders (who I love and voted for) because she may have the ability to redirect the seperatist and nationalist rhetoric which seems to be omnipresent domestically and abroad -- despite her clear hippocracy, "stronger together" is an effective and persuasive use of androgynous values -- strength through collectivism/pluralism.

Again we simply CANNOT downplay the fact that electing a woman as the head of state and head of government symbolizes a turn away from, though not complete abolition of, patriarchy and male virtue. I mean come on, the most influential person in the world for the first time in history will not have a penis. It's amazing to fathom that white-males have held role of the most powerful person for centuries, yet we may soon approach the 10 year mark of out-groups being the symbol of power. Symbolism is so powerful, let's not forget that! In the future I am hopeful women of color and then LGBTQA people will be able to move us toward dismantling the oppressive gender binary which is the progenitor of patriarchy, war, dominance, and illiberality.

As a die-hard Bernie supporter, I wish we some progressives like me would be more enthused with Clinton's bid despite our valid critiques of her previous policy positions and questionable judgment. I wonder if those actions were pragmatic, and that the only way a woman could win an election is through exceptional political maneuvering in a clearly masculine institution. Don't entirely blame clinton; there is a double-bind. Moreover, her presence can effectually combat and dismantle patriarchy and the put at bay the nationalist/separatist movements which seem to want to reinstate and strengthen patriarchical systems which have tended to move us toward war and oppression of out-groups.

gimmepie said:

It'd be easier to talk about Trump's policies if he had any.

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure Clinton has too many policies that won't suddenly change as soon as she gets in office, but that's just me.