2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

[Kanzler]

You'd think that after all this fanfare people would mostly have made up their minds by now anyway. How big a difference could it make, same as Went said.

Big difference. On the fence people who aren't deciding between Trump or Clinton, but rather whether or not to participate in the election, contributing to relative differences in turnout, could be a big factor. Also the number of conservatives who vote libertarian to send a message.

ATM the margin between Trump and Clinton appear to be several percent, from 1% to 5% IMO, so even something that changes the margin by 0.5% is a very big deal.

But Trump still needs to get ALL the swing states so there's that.

 

[gimmepie]

Big difference. On the fence people who aren't deciding between Trump or Clinton, but rather whether or not to participate in the election, contributing to relative differences in turnout, could be a big factor. Also the number of conservatives who vote libertarian to send a message.

ATM the margin between Trump and Clinton appear to be several percent, from 1% to 5% IMO, so even something that changes the margin by 0.5% is a very big deal.

But Trump still needs to get ALL the swing states so there's that.

American politics is very complicated.

 

[Livewire]

The overall trend, not counting the Conventions or the FBI findings on Benghazi episode, is Clinton +3 nationally which is in line with turnout and with what Obama did in '12, and it's held up. Nevada/Iowa might go Red, as there's always a state or two that switch sides every election, but the overall polling has her up in FL, PA, VA, OH, etc. And, Trump's interaction with the preacher who shut him down yesterday and his dipshit son's holocaust joke haven't had a chance to make the news yet, once that does, expect a hit in his polling.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Spoiler:

Edit: phone auto corrects things. Pardon the errors.

He really wasn't trying to make a joke about the Holocaust. Here's what he said: "The media has been her number one surrogate in this. Without the media, this wouldn't even be a contest, but the media has built her up ... they've let her slide on every indiscrepancy, on every lie, on every DNC game trying to get Bernie Sanders out of this thing. If Republicans were doing that, they'd be warming up the gas chamber right now."

While it may have been poor taste, I can't really see this statement as a joke per second. I think it's one of those allusion type deals where someone stumbled into a blunder unintentionally. Calling someone anti-semitic because of one phrase (and using the pepe frog meme because 'white supremacists' use pepe the frog) is like calling someone a racist because they got mad at a different skin color.

What I'm surprised at is the ADL went after Trump on the basis of being anti-semitic when he was calling out the media. Not to mention that Hillary backs Black Lives Matter, a movement that supports the killing of all white people, of whom most Jewish descendants are white. I don't know about you but I like to disassociate with those types of people. Besides, they attacked the guy for using a meme, an internet trend that millions use, not just 'whites supremacists'.

That's like saying white supremacists like peanut butter and jelly, so if you like peanut butter and jelly then you're preaching hate. Utterly ridiculous and total bunk. Hillary's campaign persons are telling folks not in the know that a green frog (that's been around since late '05) is racist and anyone using it supports white supremacy. I wouldn't take all those claims with a pinch of dirt.

Don't much like liars, son.

Edit: spoiled milk is just early cheese.

 

[Anti]

Political polarization has made me more disillusioned with politics than I ever have been. Most of the Republican Party has decided that it is better to support an unqualified, racist demagogue than a liberal. This is terrifying.

Thank goodness I can at least get a chuckle out of Pepe the Frog improbably going mainstream.

 

[Ivysaur]

Two new live polls, Clinton +6 in Minnesota (which voted exactly the same as Wisconsin in 2012, almost down to the first decimal point) and +8 in Pennsylvania despite the recent shocks, coupled with a Virginia +10 in Ipsos, show the point of the story: Trump can win in all the swing states, but sadly there aren't enough swing states to get to 270.

Now I want to see a few more live polls in Colorado and NH.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Spoiler:

I still awaiting the day when someone can prove to me that the Republican candidate is racist. If you want someone that breaks the law, siphon off resources and takes your tax dollars than that makes you racist? I've encountered real racism. My great uncle is racist as hell. Racism is absolutely ridiculous and ludicrous in a functional society. For example: he hates the way the 'damn spics push their carts' in reference to a grocery cart/basket. What? Racism is hate based upon nothing other than point of origin (skin/heritage).

Hillary Clinton is a damn liar. She's been paid numerous times on numerous occasions to lobby on behalf of Pharmaceutical corporations. She backs the 'common sense' gun laws, even though they do jack shit in preventing crime (Google shovel AK if you don't believe me when I say you can get guns if'n you want 'em.)

She lies about her health. Her campaign managers are a joke. Calling Trump fat? Look who'should calling the kettle black. Speaking of black...

Hillary backs Black Lives Matter, a group of racist hoodlums that want to abolish the police, kill ALL white people, defend criminals, refuse to acknowledge that black on black crime is a thing, rioting, looting, killing cops, killing white folks 'just 'cause #blm'. Why would I ever trust Hillary? Her docket is chock full of backers linked to a myriad of interests that don't lie with the best interests of the nation.

Please, please, please do not tell me that hydraulic fracturing isn't harmful to the environmental ecosystem in any way. Hydraulic Fracking is a bad no-no, and anyone who says it 'does no harm' is either a fucking moron or a goddamn liar, so which of the two categories does Clinton fall into?

Supporting Hillary? Supporting Fracking.

 

[Ivysaur]

I still awaiting the day when someone can prove to me that the Republican candidate is racist. If you want someone that breaks the law, siphon off resources and takes your tax dollars than that makes you racist? I've encountered real racism. My great uncle is racist as hell. Racism is absolutely ridiculous and ludicrous in a functional society. For example: he hates the way the 'damn spics push their carts' in reference to a grocery cart/basket. What? Racism is hate based upon nothing other than point of origin (skin/heritage).

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrum...a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is/

Look, here is a list of all racist things Trump has done, such as ordering that blacks be kicked out of his casinos, refusing to rent homes to blacks and saying "laziness is a trait on blacks". And a hundred more things. Honestly, look at that list and then tell me how you want to redefine the word "racism" so Trump doesn't get covered by it because if we look at the current definition he falls squarely within it.

Hillary Clinton is a damn liar. She's been paid numerous times on numerous occasions to lobby on behalf of Pharmaceutical corporations. She backs the 'common sense' gun laws, even though they do jack **** in preventing crime (Google shovel AK if you don't believe me when I say you can get guns if'n you want 'em.)

She lies about her health. Her campaign managers are a joke. Calling Trump fat? Look who'should calling the kettle black. Speaking of black...

Clinton lies? About 2/3 of statements made by Donald Trump since he started his campaign are lies, compared with 1/3 of Clinton's. Trump lies twice as much as Clinton, and he has a baffling amount of "Pants on Fire" statements. Maybe your problem is that Clinton doesn't lie enough?

Hillary backs Black Lives Matter, a group of racist hoodlums that want to abolish the police, kill ALL white people, defend criminals, refuse to acknowledge that black on black crime is a thing, rioting, looting, killing cops, killing white folks 'just 'cause #blm'. Why would I ever trust Hillary? Her docket is chock full of backers linked to a myriad of interests that don't lie with the best interests of the nation.

That is a deranged statement worthy of Donald Trump. Congratulations!

Please, please, please do not tell me that hydraulic fracturing isn't harmful to the environmental ecosystem in any way. Hydraulic Fracking is a bad no-no, and anyone who says it 'does no harm' is either a ****ing moron or a goddamn liar, so which of the two categories does Clinton fall into?

Supporting Hillary? Supporting Fracking.

Clinton about fracking:

"I don't support it when any locality or any state is against it, No. 1. I don't support it when the release of methane or contamination of water is present. I don't support it — No. 3 — unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using.

So by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place. And I think that's the best approach, because right now, there are places where fracking is going on that are not sufficiently regulated."

Trump about fracking:

Fracking poses ZERO health risks https://bit.ly/18pdO8H In fact, it increases our national security by making us energy independent.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/329676026382790656

Fracking will lead to American energy independence. With price of natural gas continuing to drop, we can be at a tremendous advantage.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/198131842593984515

So yeah. Everything you dislike about Clinton? Trump also does it, except wholeheartedly, and 100 times worse.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Spoiler:

What's worse though? Honestly? I'll even take into account that, yes, I could be wrong but it doesn't change the fact that Clinton has been in a position to better the country for over three decades and has failed time and again. She's been paid astronomical amounts by companies that lord over the decision making process. Okay, so I was incorrect on more than a few things. But I know for certain that Hillary is the greater of two evils here.

What was my deranged statement? That Hillary backs #blm or that they attack white people 'just 'cause'? Which is it? I know for certain that both those statements are true. Hillary backs #blm and #blm promotes acts of senseless violence.

White water, Benghazi, Rose Law, the Vince Foster mess, lying about 'sniper fire', took items from the white house (illegal in terms of civil suit), completely ignored comsec and transaction, fired from her first political position, backed the 'common sense' gun laws, flunked her bar exam, 'speaking fees', insider trading, travel gate, China gate, file gate, sex scandals, utilizing the FBI and the IRS for personal gain, loose ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, pardon gate, The Money Cows, Saul Alenn, laughs about her defense of a rapist, Iranian payoffs, embezzlement and useless AIDS pills, gift gate and even Spider-Gate (Stan Lee was involved somehow, I forget)

That list is not all conclusive, but it does paint a pretty shade of red on the palm. So, even if Trump is indeed a racist (I still doubt it, but ah well) Clinton is a clear cut liar and she's been doing it for longer than you've even been alive. Lying about sniper fire, not calling anybody at all (Benghazi attacks), lying about her health (I've had pneumonia before and it stretched out for months) even though she seems to have been ill for years; I don't feel slighted that she lied about her health, but more about lying about her diagnosis. Hillary has been in place where she can do whatever she wants to whomever she pleases, so forgive me when I say I'll vote for a heap of flaming elephant shit to the Presidency before I would ever vote for Hillary.

Edit: spoilers, like on the back of a 1993 Honda Civic. Also, reddit.

 

[Hands]

Hillary backs Black Lives Matter, a group of racist hoodlums that want to abolish the police, kill ALL white people, defend criminals, refuse to acknowledge that black on black crime is a thing, rioting, looting, killing cops, killing white folks 'just 'cause #blm'. Why would I ever trust Hillary? Her docket is chock full of backers linked to a myriad of interests that don't lie with the best interests of the nation.

Can you please cite an official statement by BLM as an organisation that says "kill all white people"? because frankly you are talking absolute nonsense as usual.

BLM doesn't want to abolish the police either, that's an insane statement to make. They want to abolish police brutality, against all people. It just so happens that black Americans are usually on the receiving end of it.

This is literally the most misinformed post I've ever seen on the internet, and I'm aware I'm going off topic to take this part into the spotlight but I really had to do something other than laugh till i cry.

as for your second post

What's worse though? Honestly? I'll even take into account that, yes, I could be wrong but it doesn't change the fact that Clinton has been in a position to better the country for over three decades and has failed time and again. She's been paid astronomical amounts by companies that lord over the decision making process. Okay, so I was incorrect on more than a few things. But I know for certain that Hillary is the greater of two evils here.

I don't disagree with this, Clinton has been routinely terrible for three decades, why you feel the need to embezzle your posts with all the other falsehoods is beyond me.

What was my deranged statement? That Hillary backs #blm or that they attack white people 'just 'cause'? Which is it? I know for certain that both those statements are true. Hillary backs #blm and #blm promotes acts of senseless violence.

As I said initially, what you're saying about BLM is baloney, anyone who has done even minor research into them could tell you that.

White water, Benghazi, Rose Law, the Vince Foster mess, lying about 'sniper fire', took items from the white house (illegal in terms of civil suit), completely ignored comsec and transaction, fired from her first political position, backed the 'common sense' gun laws, flunked her bar exam, 'speaking fees', insider trading, travel gate, China gate, file gate, sex scandals, utilizing the FBI and the IRS for personal gain, loose ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, pardon gate, The Money Cows, Saul Alenn, laughs about her defense of a rapist, Iranian payoffs, embezzlement and useless AIDS pills, gift gate and even Spider-Gate (Stan Lee was involved somehow, I forget)

Here we go. Sex scandals have absolutely zero to do with politics or political ability, Benghazi wasn't solely, or even mostly her fault, your gun laws are awful as is your gun culture (Britain, Asutralia and half of Europe have done just fine with tighter laws, the other half of Europe has done just fine with the same/looser laws). How is she taking Iranian bribes when she threatened to nuke them a few years back? Do you mean Saudi Arabia and Bahrain? Because she took a shedload from them, but certainly not Iran. The Spiderman thing is absolutely baffling and has zero to do with anything. You can't even remember what it's about.

That list is not all conclusive,

That's putting it lightly

but it does paint a pretty shade of red on the palm. So, even if Trump is indeed a racist (I still doubt it, but ah well)

He kinda is. So is Clinton, but then no one is denying that outright anymore.

Clinton is a clear cut liar and she's been doing it for longer than you've even been alive.

Then just stick to this stuff, stop talking about movements you clearly know nothing about and Spiderman comics

Lying about sniper fire,

yeah that was pretty poor and its a valid attack, again, stick to stuff like this that actually happened.

not calling anybody at all (Benghazi attacks), lying about her health (I've had pneumonia before and it stretched out for months) even though she seems to have been ill for years; I don't feel slighted that she lied about her health, but more about lying about her diagnosis. Hillary has been in place where she can do whatever she wants to whomever she pleases, so forgive me when I say I'll vote for a heap of flaming elephant **** to the Presidency before I would ever vote for Hillary.

I think we should calm down on wild speculation about how long she's been ill for. it's certainly not being for years. It's something that's become notable in the last 3-6 months.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Spoiler:

Considering that Clinton was found to have serious blood clotting issues since 2013. So I don't think she's in very good health by far. Due to the fact that she's been spontaneously collapsing and/or falling since 2008.

I'm also not joking about spider man. The only reason why I can remember the case was because of that. An artist, employee or other related in some way to spider man was also found guilty of fraud and/or insider trading that involved the Clintons. I can't for the life of me remember who it was but it's true. I think Stan Lee was involved at one point by being subpoenaed.

Edit: Aha! Bingo was his goddamn ****ing namo. Peter F. Paul. Lawyer, drug dealer, 'donated' money to his good friend Hillary. Stan Lee was involved. Spiderman.

Hillary was fired for incompetence and lying from her spot on the house committee. So that too.

Also, you probably have no clue how bad the gun trade is. Ever seen an 8 year old machine a receiver by hand? Illegally? In any bazaar in any middle eastern country? No? It's fascinating to say the very least. Their fingers are small enough for those tough jobs. The Kalashnikov rifle is a superb piece of work...

Further more, Europe has never, ever been close to the amount of drugs that flood our borders, so no. Wherever the hell you are your gun laws mean jack **** over here. They don't work, and they never will. The problem is that too many yaks and dumb ****s think that sprinkling magic fairy dust on a piece of legislation will make every criminal magically obey the law all of a sudden.

Europe doesn't have as many gangs as we do and they imprison far less people than we do. We deal with cartels and drug lords the likes of which you've never seen. We deal with the world's largest gang networks the world has ever seen and then you all shrug and say 'meh Australia does it better'. Come on kid. Murderers are gonna murder, gang bangers gonna gang bang. Most of the shootings that happen over here in the US are felons shooting at felons. Guess which social group aren't allowed to have guns at all? Felons. It never fails to amuse me that someone that has no clue how firearms function, never owned one, never fired one and doesn't know the difference between single action and double action tell me how bad our gun laws are.

Let's not forget to bring up Chicago. No, it doesn't have the strictest gun laws, but the police themselves have stated that criminals face harsher punishment from their gang than the prison system. And let's not forget their all out ban of all handguns that ended in 2010. Did we see a decrease in deaths when it was in place? Haha haha. No. They also banned 'assault weapons' meaning any and all long guns. Both the handgun ban and ass rifle ban were in place at the same time but that didn't stop gangers from shooting eachother up.

So, when I say that the 'common sense' gun laws makes absolutely no sense I mean it. The laws specific lyrics target 'scary looking' firearms. Meaning anything that has polymer on it, basically. Regardless the fact that Mossberg's most popular shotguns feature wooden components. Needless to say I have yet to see the man that walks away from taking a super sonic 1oz piece of lead.

The ban targets many rifles that fire either the .223 or the 5.56 (trick question, both are pretty much interchangeable despite a minor drop in pressure rates for the 5.56). In fact, when the law was in effect, more people were actually killed using long rifles than when it wasn't previously enforced. All the data is there and free. The FBI has records of this.

Hey, think of it this way, because it is the best way I can think of: when opponents of the death penalty claim that there is no solid evidence that the death penalty decreases crime, they go out and shout for more gun control. Does that not sound stupid as ****? So a law (being within the state's right to enact capital punishment) that doesn't prevent crime is okay to argue against, but the fundamentally same argument against fire arm ownership is ludicrous. It makes no sense, is what I'm trying to say.

Not only that, but around the globe in countries that do ban firearms they see an increase of blunt weapons, stabbings tools, and personal weapons murders.

Arguing for gun control because felons shoot and kill people is by far one of the stupidest and mundane arguments in the US. The police themselves have even stated as such because criminals don't care about the law or the law enforcement. It's really not that hard to grasp. Stealing, murder, rape, fraud, etc that's all against the law, right? So how come we have all these people breaking it?

More gangs, more drugs, more criminals, more illegal firearms, more prisoners, more cop killers, more murders. What more do you want me to say? We have royal issues.

Edit: spoilers. Should have done it sooner. Ah, well

 

[Ivysaur]

Europe doesn't have as many gangs as we do and they imprison far less people than we do. We deal with cartels and drug lords the likes of which you've never seen. We deal with the world's largest gang networks the world has ever seen and then you all shrug and say 'meh Australia does it better'. Come on kid. Murderers are gonna murder, gang bangers gonna gang bang. Most of the shootings that happen over here in the US are felons shooting at felons. Guess which social group aren't allowed to have guns at all? Felons. It never fails to amuse me that someone that has no clue how firearms function, never owned one, never fired one and doesn't know the difference between single action and double action tell me how bad our gun laws are.

The problem is, most mass-shootings were cased by people using guns from their family/friends. So it's pointless to ban X person from buying guns if you allow every person surrounding X to buy two and give him one.

Also, the US has the biggest gangs in the world? Biggest drug cartels? Have you ever been in Mexico or Colombia? Or Italy, for that matter?

Let's not forget to bring up Chicago. No, it doesn't have the strictest gun laws, but the police themselves have stated that criminals face harsher punishment from their gang than the prison system. And let's not forget their all out ban of all handguns that ended in 2010. Did we see a decrease in deaths when it was in place? Haha haha. No. They also banned 'assault weapons' meaning any and all long guns. Both the handgun ban and ass rifle ban were in place at the same time but that didn't stop gangers from shooting eachother up.

Well ionno, but this graphic looks pretty downward... until 2010, when the handgun ban is overturned. Then you get a small spike and then it flattens out at the same level it was in 2010!

Not only that, but around the globe in countries that do ban firearms they see an increase of blunt weapons, stabbings tools, and personal weapons murders.

Source? Or is that just something you just came up with?

And anyway, this topic should go in another thread. This is a thread about the elections, not about the US's horrible violence issues.

 

[CoffeeDrink]

The UNODC Global Study on Homicide 2011.

Spoiler:

The document shows that western, Southern, and eastern Asia with the lowest homicide rates over all (Africa is a godawful mess). They found that in the Americas (around 29 countries or so), 76% of all homicides involve firearms while only 10% involve other weapons. However, in the God almighty 'gun-less' region of Europe (32 surveyed countries) 36% of all homicides involved firearms while a whopping 43% involve knives or other blunt instruments. Considering the UNODC itself is part of the UN and the EU I believe the results are goddamn clear cut.

As to gangland...

Hell's Angel's MC, MS-13, 18th Street, Wah Ching, the Bloods, the Crips, Outlaws MC, Banditos MC, The Aryan Brotherhood, The Latin Kings, the Mexican Mafia, and other such smaller gangs and their ilk. Not to mention Transnational gangs...

So, you bring up drug cartels? That brings me to my next point. Trans-national gangs/organized crime rackets such as Los Zetos (one of the largest drug cartels in current operation) finds a market place for their wares. The US makes up a small portion of the world but is the largest consumer of illicit narcotics in the world. That's a fact.

There are also several terrorist groups from Europe such as the IRA for example, that operate within the US. The Russian Mob, the Sicilian mafia, Albanian, Jewish and the American mafia, the Korean mafia, the Yakuza and Triads... most of Europe's gangs are indeed transnational so the point about drug cartels and the like is pretty much null and void.

They might make their product in Scotland but they sure as hell don't sell it there (I have no clue if Scotland even has this issue but it's an example, not a fact). Some countries even promote drug growth and have come under fire for it. Farmers in South America can make much more by growing and selling plants to cartels than by growing legitimate crops. Response to 'sanitizing' the drug fields has been godawful slow.

Drugs, weapons, human traffiking... we get billions of dollars of black market goods going in and out of our country day in and day out. The world's largest gangs (the gangs we deal with in CA specifically) aren't even transnational, such as the Bloods and the Crips. Their members number in the hundreds of thousandskin. So no, I'm not making random **** up when I say Europe doesn't deal with as much gangland **** as we do.

Regardless of what you want to believe, or who told you what. Europe has, as far as I'm concerned, one of the lowest levels of criminal outfits operating within their borders. Sure, you get tons of illegal product moved through the borders but business men sell where there is high demand and that's not Europe.

Look, the UNODC document is all I really need to point you to to make my point, so have at it. Not trying to trip on anyone's toes but facts are facts and I'm somewhat invested in the field.

One last point, spree killings are the random fruitcake. It's impossible to nail down any such nuts. I'm sure you know all about china's stabbing spree where 10 people wounded 130+ with knives and slashing instruments or when a Japanese janitor got fed up with something and stabbed 8 kids to death.

Anyways, this is all a huge digression from what the thread was entirely about, like you said so I'll shut the hell up about it and let everyone be about their merry way.

What are your thoughts on the candidates meeting foreign nationals and officials? I think it could have been better considering there were two bombings recently. I don't know how I feel. Pissed off people think that blowing up people needlessly is a 'good' result. Sickening.

I thought Clinton actually handled herself better and saw positive results from the Japanese. Good for her. Don't want her to win, but she's handled the forming delegates a tad better than Trump but that was expected.

 

[Hands]

Considering that Clinton was found to have serious blood clotting issues since 2013. So I don't think she's in very good health by far. Due to the fact that she's been spontaneously collapsing and/or falling since 2008.

I'm also not joking about spider man. The only reason why I can remember the case was because of that. An artist, employee or other related in some way to spider man was also found guilty of fraud and/or insider trading that involved the Clintons. I can't for the life of me remember who it was but it's true. I think Stan Lee was involved at one point by being subpoenaed.

Edit: Aha! Bingo was his goddamn ****ing namo. Peter F. Paul. Lawyer, drug dealer, 'donated' money to his good friend Hillary. Stan Lee was involved. Spiderman.

Hillary was fired for incompetence and lying from her spot on the house committee. So that too.

Also, you probably have no clue how bad the gun trade is. Ever seen an 8 year old machine a receiver by hand? Illegally? In any bazaar in any middle eastern country? No? It's fascinating to say the very least. Their fingers are small enough for those tough jobs. The Kalashnikov rifle is a superb piece of work...

Further more, Europe has never, ever been close to the amount of drugs that flood our borders, so no. Wherever the hell you are your gun laws mean jack **** over here. They don't work, and they never will. The problem is that too many yaks and dumb ****s think that sprinkling magic fairy dust on a piece of legislation will make every criminal magically obey the law all of a sudden.

Europe doesn't have as many gangs as we do and they imprison far less people than we do. We deal with cartels and drug lords the likes of which you've never seen. We deal with the world's largest gang networks the world has ever seen and then you all shrug and say 'meh Australia does it better'. Come on kid. Murderers are gonna murder, gang bangers gonna gang bang. Most of the shootings that happen over here in the US are felons shooting at felons. Guess which social group aren't allowed to have guns at all? Felons. It never fails to amuse me that someone that has no clue how firearms function, never owned one, never fired one and doesn't know the difference between single action and double action tell me how bad our gun laws are.

Let's not forget to bring up Chicago. No, it doesn't have the strictest gun laws, but the police themselves have stated that criminals face harsher punishment from their gang than the prison system. And let's not forget their all out ban of all handguns that ended in 2010. Did we see a decrease in deaths when it was in place? Haha haha. No. They also banned 'assault weapons' meaning any and all long guns. Both the handgun ban and ass rifle ban were in place at the same time but that didn't stop gangers from shooting eachother up.

So, when I say that the 'common sense' gun laws makes absolutely no sense I mean it. The laws specific lyrics target 'scary looking' firearms. Meaning anything that has polymer on it, basically. Regardless the fact that Mossberg's most popular shotguns feature wooden components. Needless to say I have yet to see the man that walks away from taking a super sonic 1oz piece of lead.

The ban targets many rifles that fire either the .223 or the 5.56 (trick question, both are pretty much interchangeable despite a minor drop in pressure rates for the 5.56). In fact, when the law was in effect, more people were actually killed using long rifles than when it wasn't previously enforced. All the data is there and free. The FBI has records of this.

Hey, think of it this way, because it is the best way I can think of: when opponents of the death penalty claim that there is no solid evidence that the death penalty decreases crime, they go out and shout for more gun control. Does that not sound stupid as ****? So a law (being within the state's right to enact capital punishment) that doesn't prevent crime is okay to argue against, but the fundamentally same argument against fire arm ownership is ludicrous. It makes no sense, is what I'm trying to say.

Not only that, but around the globe in countries that do ban firearms they see an increase of blunt weapons, stabbings tools, and personal weapons murders.

Arguing for gun control because felons shoot and kill people is by far one of the stupidest and mundane arguments in the US. The police themselves have even stated as such because criminals don't care about the law or the law enforcement. It's really not that hard to grasp. Stealing, murder, rape, fraud, etc that's all against the law, right? So how come we have all these people breaking it?

More gangs, more drugs, more criminals, more illegal firearms, more prisoners, more cop killers, more murders. What more do you want me to say? We have royal issues.

Can you please quote me when you reply so I see that you've responded? Thanks.

Whilst it's irrelevant to the discussion to add the gun "manufactures" of the Khyber Pass and Kirkuk I will say this, the Kalashnikovs, alongside virtually every other gun produced there are not "superb" they often break as soon as live rounds are fired through and are rarely machined to an even semi professional standard. Also don't do the whole "have you....? no?" crap with me buddy.

We deal with cartels and drug lords the likes of which you've never seen.

Dear me, what a fantasy. Britain had the Krays, Italy had/has the families, Germany has virtually hundreds of gangs etc.

Where are your sources of BLM officially calling for the mass killings of whites?

 

[gimmepie]

Whilst Gun control might come up as a political thing relating to election, I think if you guys really want to get into that it's time for Gun Control Thread #3042

 

[Ivysaur]

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/20/politics/george-hw-bush-hillary-clinton/

So that makes four of the five living presidents to vote for Clinton in this election. Bush Jr. hasn't announced his vote either way. As someone said, it's a very bad rebuke when none of the previous guys who did the job you are applying for think you can do it.

Also of note is that an analysis of the Trump-Ryan tax plans by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center "99.6 percent of the tax cuts would benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, according to the analysis. This group would enjoy the greatest relief as a share of their income (increasing their incomes after taxes by 10.6 percent on average) and in terms of dollars (an average annual savings of $240,000 for each household). Poor and working-class households would gain more modest benefits. The poorest 20 percent of Americans would see an average increase of 0.5 percent in their incomes, or about $120 a year. Households in the upper middle class, those in the 60th percentile through the 95th percentile, would pay more in taxes on average."

So do you want more taxes for the middle classes and a millionaire windfall for the 1%? Vote Trump!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...richest-1-of-americans/?wpisrc=nl_wonk&wpmm=1

 

[CoffeeDrink]

Spoiler:

First, I never stated that bazaar knock offs were superb, simply that the Kalashnikov rifle itself is superb.

Nice to see you're a Tom Hardy fan. As far as I understand it, the Krays are dead, their gang is dead, and they're relevant because why? You've only given me the specific name of, not even that, just the names of the bosses of the Firm (that's it, right?). So, a single, dead, example. You haven't put forth any viable example for me to look at. I'd be willing to take a gander but there isn't anything there to gander at! At least put some pieces on the board man! Give me two examples of gangs in Europe that have an accurate guesstimate of members that number in the hundreds of thousands. I've given you four, so I think that's fair.

Also, the Italian mafia hasn't seen prominence in a good couple of decades. See: transinternational. So you deal with them too? Gosh, I had no clue what transinternational meant. The Five families are pretty much side show these days anyways...

Oh, and this made me chuckle "Germany has literally hundreds of gangs". Where is your data sir? You laugh and chortle and mock me for living in the land of fantasy make believe. Why is that? Where is the data? Where is your data? The facts? Where is the research, collection, logged, tagged, bagged, sanctioned data? You have given me absolutely nothing to fact check the great D-20 in the sky- sorry, the 'hundreds of gangs' in Germany! No data, no references just a bunch of smoke. No names of functioning gangs, no governmental entity that has conducted research and nothing to compare it to. No numbers, nothing!

You've also completely ignored the fact that all of Europe is leagues away from all the homicides and criminal activity that the United States alone suffers! I've pointed you towards a UNODC document even! Named it specifically even! If you did a simple search the UNODC pdf. pops. That doesn't even cover what the FBI has stored in its data banks!

The NGTA (National Gang Threat Assessment) has several public documents on file with the FBI, all of it free and all of it accessible with the click of a button, but you refuse to see the data or even look for it. Again, utilize all of the FBI data.

Europe has as much gangland activity? 'Hundreds of gangs'? Don't make me squirt whiskey out my nose, it burns! You want the last count by the FBI on noticeable gangs and functional active gangs in the United States?The qualifiers being violent, criminal activity. Active, not defunct or shriveled dry like the Tom Hardy twins. I mean Kray twins, sorry.

Try thirty three thousand (33,000).

My apologies almighty Pie, please allow me this one last salvo...

Hm. Looking at the WP article it is hard to say at this point. Reading through it it seems like both sides are being petty. The group that they chose to provide estimates seem pretty leery of their own estimates, unfortunate. I would have preferred if they released both at the same time.

Even if I was for Hillary I'd still like to see both side by side and not shuffled one after another. It risks miscalculation, misdirection (some articles can get buried under current events) and it's far easier to spot mistakes when you make them twice I guess.

Well, I don't think this will change my mind in any case. I was pretty angry at the bank bailout and the auto bailout back in '08. We'll be seeing that damage for decades to come. Taxes suck, but I'd at least liked to have seen both equally sucks tax proposals side by side.

EDIT: as always, auto corrections blow chunks. Errors be damned, I'm leaving them.

 

[Mewtwolover]

Can you please cite an official statement by BLM as an organisation that says "kill all white people"?

Of course they don't say that directly, google "Black Lives Matter anti-white" and you'll find proof that it is an anti-white movement.

What I'm surprised at is the ADL went after Trump on the basis of being anti-semitic when he was calling out the media. Not to mention that Hillary backs Black Lives Matter, a movement that supports the killing of all white people, of whom most Jewish descendants are white.

I'm not surprised at that.

 

[Esper]

Of course they don't say that directly, google "Black Lives Matter anti-white" and you'll find proof that it is an anti-white movement.

I did just that, googled it in quotes and everything, and I did not find any proof. I found a few websites with some very blatant anti-liberal political stances. Basically opinion pieces for (what I assume are) conservative news sites and blogs. I also got one of those conspiracy sites with the bad photoshop collages of faces and symbols of Judaism which I assume means they think that there is some kind of Jewish conspiracy involved in all of this. This was all on the first results page.

Point is, just googling it doesn't provide any proof at all.

 

[Hands]

Of course they don't say that directly, google "Black Lives Matter anti-white" and you'll find proof that it is an anti-white movement.

I'm not surprised at that.

I googled it, and, like Esper, the only thing I found backing your nonsense stance on this were alt right and far right blog type sites that provided zero sources or citations. Would you like to share some links with us?