Author Topic: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election  (Read 183630 times)

Offline Tad

  • *
  • Posts: 1691
  • Total Meseta: 6
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
« Reply #105 on: December 23, 2015, 09:54:13 pm »
Nah, not really. I just haven't had time I'm afraid. Sorry.

Offline George

  • *
  • Posts: 6263
  • Total Meseta: 668
    • http://www.segabits.com/
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
« Reply #106 on: December 25, 2015, 06:40:33 pm »
@George

In theory taxpayer-funded campaigns seem like a good idea, but in pratical terms... NO F***ING WAY! The biggest donors to the Democrat Party are mostly public-sector unions, even if you cut out corporate donations.

Also Lindsay Graham dropped out of the race and my question is: Lindsay Graham was in the Presidential race!?
Not for Hilary, but yeah like Sanders does get Union funding. Though I think Taxpayer funded + individual donations (not exceeding a certain amount) is the best way. Honestly, if people aren't going to give you cash then maybe your not worth running? I mean if all your money comes from pandering to unions (which in the end aren't funding campaigns as much as private sector) and companies, than maybe you aren't fit for presidency in America that should be 'for the people' not for 'the billionaires'.

Offline pcm92

  • *
  • Posts: 364
  • Total Meseta: 3
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
« Reply #107 on: December 26, 2015, 09:37:59 pm »
George, are you saying you support Clinton over Sanders? Imo, she seems a lot less liberal than Sanders. I think she would be conservative on many levels. She once said that abortion was wrong. Now she says she supports it just to have more votes. She also claims that Bill will most likely be her vice president. Not sure how that's possible.

Offline George

  • *
  • Posts: 6263
  • Total Meseta: 668
    • http://www.segabits.com/
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
« Reply #108 on: December 27, 2015, 05:08:01 pm »
I do no support Clinton at all. She wants boots on the ground and is already bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs.

Offline pcm92

  • *
  • Posts: 364
  • Total Meseta: 3
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
« Reply #109 on: January 03, 2016, 09:53:49 pm »
I cant believe the president is now ordering more control on guns. He said this out of nowhere. There was no major mass murder that happened anytime in about two or three months. Why is he doing this now? Just to prove he has another year left? I can't wait for Hillary to be the president so Americans can see that we do need a Republican in office again. Hopefully, it doesn't even take that long. If we can just vote for someone at least nearly tolerable in November, we will be a lot safer. Especially since ISIS wants to bomb us next. On top of that, we have African American protests too often. Black Lives matter, but race allegations are a lot worse since Obama has been the president.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2016, 09:56:16 pm by pcm92 »

Offline JRcade19

  • *
  • Posts: 550
  • Total Meseta: 6
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
« Reply #110 on: January 04, 2016, 09:10:41 am »
That type of thinking is exactly why we have gun control issues in the first place.

The idea that we need to wait for even MORE mass shootings/murders to justify regulations to ensure better gun ownership responsibility is insane to me as someone who supports the 2nd amendment. There are tons of common sense gun regulations that probably should've been implemented by now had not the NRA lobbying powerhouse fear-mongered the hell out of everything.

Everyone was quick to chant for blood and revenge for 9/11 at a country that had more or less nothing to do with it.
Everyone was quick to throw away and to continue throwning away civil liberties to be safe from "Terrorists".
27 kids dead here, college shootups there, movie massacres though? Nope can't do that because reasons.

It reeks of an onion article. "No way to prevent this, says only nation in which it regularly happens"

Offline George

  • *
  • Posts: 6263
  • Total Meseta: 668
    • http://www.segabits.com/
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
« Reply #111 on: January 04, 2016, 05:20:17 pm »
Both sides are way to leaning and refuse to meet each other half way. How about before taking constitutional rights away, why don't they tighten gun control. My brother bought a AR-15 and he didn't even know how it works. This is California.

For sure they need to close loop holes where you can get them in events without a background check. That's bullshit. They need to increase focus on background checks and do them right. How about we also have single payer healthcard with real mental facilities for these people that are crazy. In the end, thats the thing isn't it? Their all a bit out there, be them white or black or whatever.

Increase jobs for the middle class, legalize weed and a few smaller things and this violence we do have will decrease quite a bit. Violence and gun crime is dropping, believe it or not.

The thing is guns and immigrants are really  just covers for them not to talk about the real issue. The disappearing middle class of America. Notice how that one illegal that killed that girl got like 80% more air time on TV than like... 80% of the white people that went on massacres.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2016, 05:22:03 pm by George »

Offline Spock

  • *
  • Posts: 387
  • Total Meseta: 2
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
« Reply #112 on: January 04, 2016, 05:33:40 pm »
Ever notice how the states that have so many gun control laws - like Oregon, Colorado, and Illinois - are the exact states that these mass shootings happen in? I think the media makes violence look like a good thing. That's the main problem. We shouldn't have a government that has both the right to bear arms along with freedom of the press/media. The government can't do anything about either, unless an ammendment is repealed. If the president decides to repeal an ammendment that old, I'm sure he will be out of office faster than next January.

Offline Happy Cat

  • *
  • Posts: 3856
  • Total Meseta: 48
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
« Reply #113 on: January 04, 2016, 05:35:45 pm »
surprised it hasn't been posted yet

Trump's first ad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t1p2K-7Eww&feature=youtu.be

it's extreme as you'd expect

Offline pcm92

  • *
  • Posts: 364
  • Total Meseta: 3
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
« Reply #114 on: January 05, 2016, 04:22:31 pm »
At least they are just doing more strict background checks. I know Trump is working for Hillary. That is a fact, but I do agree with him in saying that more gun restrictions are coming. This includes, but is not limited to making it illegal to buy ammunition.

Offline George

  • *
  • Posts: 6263
  • Total Meseta: 668
    • http://www.segabits.com/
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
« Reply #115 on: January 05, 2016, 04:48:48 pm »
Ever notice how the states that have so many gun control laws - like Oregon, Colorado, and Illinois - are the exact states that these mass shootings happen in? I think the media makes violence look like a good thing. That's the main problem. We shouldn't have a government that has both the right to bear arms along with freedom of the press/media. The government can't do anything about either, unless an ammendment is repealed. If the president decides to repeal an ammendment that old, I'm sure he will be out of office faster than next January.
Not really, sounds made up:
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/55ddfa3bbd86ef21008b613b-1200-970/kaiser-foundation-gun-deaths-state-map.png this is a map for 2015.

Maybe the media just reports more on states with stricter gun laws. I feel they do the same with minorities. One illegal killed a girl in San Francisco and it was on the yar for like 2 weeks everyday. Yet at the same time cops killed minorities and other legal Americans did the same. Its weird.

Offline pcm92

  • *
  • Posts: 364
  • Total Meseta: 3
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
« Reply #116 on: January 05, 2016, 05:42:08 pm »
I think probably almost half of the firearm deaths and injuries are sometimes caused by accidents. That map does convince me to stay away from Alaska. I knew Montana would be high. They have a lot of hunting and massive amounts of gun shows. Some people don't eat food from the grocery store. They teach their children survival skills by showing them how to hunt for their food. I imagine they will be disappointed if Bernie Sanders becomes their next president.

Offline George

  • *
  • Posts: 6263
  • Total Meseta: 668
    • http://www.segabits.com/
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
« Reply #117 on: January 05, 2016, 06:13:14 pm »
Why would they be disappointing? Vermont has a lot of hunting and he has been reelected like 3 times and has a 80%+ approval rating. I don't think its bad what he wants to do with guns, it feels like a mid way point. I don't see why background checks scares people. Personally think they need to pass tests like a drivers license to own a gun, but that just me because I feel like Americans aren't smart enough to even drive safety much less own a gun without knowing the basics.

Tho I do agree Bernie's weird thing with assault weapons is odd. While I think having a AR-15 for hunting is stupid as hell, I don't think there have been enough mass shootings with assault weapons to even ban them. I mean, they usually do it with hand guns cuz their easier to hide.

But I don't think Bernie is bad for gun toting owners at all. Outside of people that have assault weapons, I guess.

Offline JRcade19

  • *
  • Posts: 550
  • Total Meseta: 6
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
« Reply #118 on: January 05, 2016, 10:15:34 pm »
Allowing the sales of firearms without the ability to purchase ammunition is pointless. It's an even more dystopian non reality that stopping the sales of firearms in the US. Even the hardest of hard gun control measures in other first world nations allow for leeway for indigenous or hunters living on the land to purchase and maintain firearms and ammunition for hunting and pest control

Offline pcm92

  • *
  • Posts: 364
  • Total Meseta: 3
Re: 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
« Reply #119 on: January 05, 2016, 10:19:38 pm »
Why would they be disappointing? Vermont has a lot of hunting and he has been reelected like 3 times and has a 80%+ approval rating. I don't think its bad what he wants to do with guns, it feels like a mid way point. I don't see why background checks scares people. Personally think they need to pass tests like a drivers license to own a gun, but that just me because I feel like Americans aren't smart enough to even drive safety much less own a gun without knowing the basics.

Tho I do agree Bernie's weird thing with assault weapons is odd. While I think having a AR-15 for hunting is stupid as hell, I don't think there have been enough mass shootings with assault weapons to even ban them. I mean, they usually do it with hand guns cuz their easier to hide.

But I don't think Bernie is bad for gun toting owners at all. Outside of people that have assault weapons, I guess.

It's really hard to tell. He's not the president right now. Most presidents so far have seemed really good before the elections, then turned out to be horrible during their second term. The Democrats kind of bore me during this election. The only person that I would consider voting for is Cruz. The other Republicans have insane policies this time. If I had to choose a Democrat, then I would say Sanders. I did manage to find this, in case you were wondering the differences between Sanders and Clinton on gun control:

http://www.msn.com/en-ae/video/downtime/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-face-off-over-gun-control/vp-AAfpRu9