General US Politics

[Life]

... and?

Well, yeah, it's Huffington Post. What do you expect? They've been known to be left wing shills for a while now.

Having that said, what is your source for her health? I don't actually understand this conspiracy theory, because both presidential candidates are 70 years old, I am pretty sure their health isn't perfect.

I don't get the health idea.

Nobody is going to not vote for either Trump or Clinton because they're unhealthy. All it is a performance by both sides instead of calling out deficencies in their stances.

My favourite is Trump's immigration flip. He went from villifying amnesty to a position that is significantly left of Cruz and Jeb Bush.

I'm not surprised but come on. Changing your mind is one thing. But now I'm going to say that you're soft on immigration and use Cruz as my example.

That, of course, is one of the reasons why DT isn't a conservative.

Of course, Hillary's campaign should also be in shambles due to Huma Abiden but apparently having a uterus means that you're immune to criticism.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Tryhard]

To be fair, Donald Trump's medical letter was as strange. It contained typoes, referred to "positive results" in the same language that doctors would normally use to confirm the existence of a medical problem. It also states that if Trump is elected, "he will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" which is just a laughable statement considering there is no way the doctor could ever know that.

Again, the huffingtonpost, I know, but this article does point out quite a few inconsistencies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-gunter/im-a-doctor-heres-concerning-trumps-medical-letter_b_11565838.html

I mean, not that I really consider them having health problems to be a major issue, they are both around 70 years old as stated.

My favourite is Trump's immigration flip. He went from villifying amnesty to a position that is significantly left of Cruz and Jeb Bush.

I'm not surprised but come on. Changing your mind is one thing. But now I'm going to say that you're soft on immigration and use Cruz as my example.

That, of course, is one of the reasons why DT isn't a conservative.

Isn't that the definition of a general election pivot, despite Trump's claims that he would not do a pivot? Edited August 29, 2016 by Tryhard

[Life]

Isn't that the definition of a general election pivot, despite Trump's claims that he would not do a pivot?

Yeah except Ann Coulter and Jeff Sessions wrote his immigration policy and Trump screwed them.

[Crysta]

He didn't pivot; he practically drove off the cliff in repudiating one of his positions which was previously one of his biggest selling points, because his campaign finally realized how dire the situation was outside of white dudes and he was now in the general election and not in the primaries. A pivot is much more subtle imo.

If I wasn't aware of how big of a narcissist he was I would suspect he was deliberately trying to lose, but I think he genuinely thinks he's savvy and charismatic enough to pull it off. And there may be followers who insist, in their own heads, that he's just doing what he needs to win and he totally doesn't mean what he says (because they've been practically insisting this each time he says something unequivocally stupid - which is like every other week).

Spoiler alert: there isn't going to be a wall. And he's probably just going to end up doing the same thing Obama's been doing with immigration.

EDIT: The rift with Ann Coulter is hilarious because she openly admitted he can suddenly be a tree-hugging liberal and she'd still vote for him if he kept his immigration stance... and he flip-flopped on it right when her "In Trump We Trust" book tour was starting. It's almost poetic.

EDIT2: The health issue is brought up in every presidential election where one candidate isn't the glowing epitome of health and almost always seems to be a distraction tactic to me. McCain got a lot of flak for it, too.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Crysta

[CyborgZeta]

He went from villifying amnesty to a position that is significantly left of Jeb Bush.

I don't recall Jeb wanting a wall.

[Life]

I don't recall Jeb wanting a wall.

Jeb Bush wasn't exactly promoting amnesty. And Trump now holds the same view on immigration as George W. Bush. Which is amnesty.

Ergo, he's moved to the left of Jeb.

Also, Ann Coulter legitimately believes that immigration is the single most important issue in American politics. Ben Shapiro and Andrew Klavan were howling on air when they heard Trump speak on Hannity.

[-Cynthia-]

Trump has had a lot of difficulty sticking to what his actual policy plans are. Is he for or against raising the minimum wage? Is he for or against raising taxes on the wealthy? Immigration just joins the list.

People mistake a lack of 'political correctness' for honesty. They're not the same thing.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

well this was a video regarding clinton's health, and even mentioned to talk about email discussions and did bring up the McCain's health thing as a parallel.

[Yojinbo]

I don't get the health idea.

Nobody is going to not vote for either Trump or Clinton because they're unhealthy. All it is a performance by both sides instead of calling out deficencies in their stances.

Considering how much traveling a president is required to do - around the globe, within his own country, attending all sorts of meetings - health should be at least a bit of a concern. Visiting China the one day, having to head back home to DC the next because of a mass shooting, then having to go to the place of the incident and hold a speech, then having to deal with the press after negotioating with the republicans over gun laws; all that happening within 24 hours isn't something that just doesn't affect you. Since things like that tend to be a president's everyday life it'll invariably take its toll on him - just look at how much older Obama grew within those eight years. If that's what happens to somebody who appears to be an obviously healthy man do you really think that, say, Chris Christie would be physically capable of handling that job? I'd be legitimately worried that he'd either die of a heart attack or have to resign like a year in. And that would certainly be reason enough for me to exclude somebody from consideration alltogether.

Not that I'm saying that this is the case for Hillary or Dolan, I'd exclude them from consideration for entirely different reasons.

[Life]

Trump has had a lot of difficulty sticking to what his actual policy plans are. Is he for or against raising the minimum wage? Is he for or against raising taxes on the wealthy? Immigration just joins the list.

People mistake a lack of 'political correctness' for honesty. They're not the same thing.

Incorrect.

That speech he had on race a few weeks ago was spot on the money (as I said earlier). Hillary then went out and tried to claim that Trump was "racist" because he was pointing out all the problems with black communities and saying "stop voting Democrat because they're not helping you".

That's PC at work. When it is considered bigotry to point out legitimate concerns in a minority community.

I think that it is the only policy that he won't flip on because it makes sense and he knows it.

[Lord Raven]

She claimed Trump was racist because he was a racist. Did you read the transcript?

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/25/12647810/hillary-clinton-speech-alt-right

I didn't care about their "analysis," I just read through the transcript. I'm not sure why you have any reason to believe Trump will honestly do anything to help black communities either.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Life]

Ok. Let's unpack Hillary's speech and see how accurate it is.

TRIGGER WARNING: Shit might get real here. And it's LONG.

[spoiler=Why Hillary Clinton is no less a terrible human being than Donald Trump when considering the facts]

In just the past week, under the guise of "outreach" to African Americans, Trump has stood up in front of largely white audiences and described black communities in insulting and ignorant terms:

"Poverty. Rejection. Horrible education. No housing. No homes. No ownership.

Crime at levels nobody has seen

Those are his words.

What part of this is incorrect? We've already hit education and I will conceed that I have yet to find out the causation of why black education stagnated under Obama. I have a theory that it applies to funding but since I've yet to get the numbers, let's put that to the side.

In my opinion, crime is the reason for poverry and lack of education and I'll explain why.

Let's take Chicago as our example. Go to South side (3000S or more) and you're basically asking to be shot. At least that's what they told me last year when I was in Chicago.

Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Before we get into the crime aspect itself, let's look at the current legislature since this is an integral part of the Democratic platform.

Understanding firearm legislation is vital to the argument but I'm going to spoiler it because it's long and can easily be taken out of context to the issue at hand (crime).

[spoiler=Gun Control in Illinois]I'm going to take the most important things here since anyone who has ever bought a gun in a legal fashion knows that a lot of the myths about guns are false (no such thing as a gun show loophole, cannot buy a gun without a mandatory background check and automatic weapons are incredibly difficult to get since the process takes about a year and requires a seller with a Class III license).

- No open carry allowed.

A few things to note. A license is required for concealed carry and not so for open carry. In addition, open carry deters crime on a statistical level because a person is less likely to attack someone who is packing heat because the risk is greater.

Open Carry statistics

In you want a more detailed analysis, simply compare violent crime statistics as opposed to where open carry is legal.

- Assault Weapon ban.

First of all, Assault Weapon is a term that is used to make big, black rifles that "spray hundreds of bullets in seconds" to be evil. Not so. A spoon can be an assault weapon in theory but let's zero in on the "big, black monsters".

It is virtually impossible to acquire a fully automatic weapon in the legal sense (as described above). That means that weapons like the AR-15 are semi-automatic weapons, like handguns. Squeeze the trigger once and a bullet comes out while the next bullet is chambered. So the idea of "spraying hundreds of bullets in seconds" isn't true because A) it doesn't account for magazine changes and B) these weapons are NOT automatic and can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.

In a nutshell, the only differences between AR-15s and your average Glock (or even a hunting rifle) are:

1) Calibre

2) Size of the weapon

3) Aethetics

The last one is the difference that gives people grief because it looks mean. But an AR-15 is a very good weapon for home defence because being able to hold it with two hands allows for better stability. As an ex-IDF combat soldier and current reservist, my professional opinion is that an AR-15 is much better for home defense if you are not familiar with firearms.

BUT!

I'n going to play along and we will go with Illinois's decription of an "assault weapon".

Cook County's legal definition of "Assault Weapon"

This is specifically across Cook County but Chicago basically has the same definition.

The important thing to note here is that a lot of these bans are aethetical. Folding stock, removal of a stock (which I do not recommend), frontal grip (contrary to popular belief, a frontal grip will not provide additional accuracy and I want you to take my word as gospel on this one), shroud... these do not affect performance of the actual firearm in any way, shape or form.

After that, the list goes on to mention different models... essentially banning any non-hunting bolt action rifle. Mind you, the limits on handguns are not at the same level.

Why is this important? Because a big part of these "assault weapon" regulations are purely aethetical. You can take me to the bank on that statement.

- Background checks are mandatory, no registry required... let's dive into registry for a second. It's off topic but while we're here, let's clear it up.

Why is registry pointless? Because it costs far too much money. Canada had to eliminate their gun registry because the program would have cost over $1 billion for the 2004/05 fiscal year. That's a country of 35 million people without the right to bear arms. Registration programs in the USA will cost at least $10 billion. And that's before realizing that criminals will not register their guns anyway.

Waste of time, waste of tax dollars.

All in all, strict gun control rules. Far more strict than... Texas, for example.

And yet, gun crime in Chicago is an all time high.

Highest gun violence numbers in 20 years

As I said earlier, the vast majority of homicides occur in west and south Chicago. Those are areas with high concentrations of poor black families, gangs and general violence. And 80% of all gun homicides are gang and/or drug related.

Time for the macro and why gun legislation and crime in black communities are related.

Gun control will not eliminate gang crime in black inner-city populations. It will only serve to disarm law abiding citizens. In fact, violent crime raises in areas with gun control (UK, Canada, Australia are all examples) because the populace cannot defend themselves. Meanwhile, you have Hillary Clinton not proposing a solution to gang and drug crime and simply blaming legal firearm holders. She is content with letting the communities suffer and allowing crime to continue. In return, she blames the issue on guns and people want to believe that the Democrats are helping the black community. A bait-and-switch if you will.

Gang crime isn't just responsible for murders. It contributes to poverty because businesses cannot flourish. Kids drop out of schools and join gangs. And minimal policing allows these communities simply to degrade even more.

So when Trump says "hey, I'm going to bring in more police who are better trained in order to enforce order in poor areas", he's proposing a solution that will curb gang violence. As a result, businesses will be able flourish to flourish, creating jobs, allowing kids to complete education and the community will benefit as a result.

But for saying so, he's a racist and slandering the black community if you ask Hillary. Mind you, Herman Cain has the same opinion and he's called a "coon" because of it.

Donald Trump misses so much.

He doesnt see the success of black leaders in every field.

The vibrancy of black-owned businessesOr the strength of the black church He doesnt see the excellence of historically black colleges and universities or the pride of black parents watching their children thrive. And he certainly doesnt have any solutions to take on the reality of systemic racism and create more equity and opportunity in communities of color.

Trump outlined an excellent solution to help black Americans. Sorry that you weren't listening.

This whole segment is a joke. Hillary intentionally pushes the idea of systemic racism when it was her party that historically was the racist one (her mentor, Robert Byrd, basically had KKK dental and a company car).

Let's ignore the crushing poverty in black communities for a second who have voted Democrat for 40+ years. Let's ignore gang crime in Chicago, Harlem and Oakland that kills thousands of black men a year (ironically by other blacks). Let's ignore programs like Affirmative Action that leads to higher drop-out rates by black students in colleges because they can't compete due to lack of education prior to university. Let's ignore the fact that black family structures don't exist with fathers leaving mothers, black children having a 50% of being born due to abortions and a general failure of the system for these people.

Thank god for black churches!

Either Hillary is delusional about black communities or she knows and she doesn't actually care. She'll get the black vote anyway because the media helps her by pushing the "Trump is a racist" idea.

Trump is reinforcing harmful stereotypes and offering a dog whistle to his most hateful supporters.

First part of that sentence is wrong when talking about the black community. Others? Possibly but Hillary is referring to Trump's racial speech specifically.

The second is partially true. Trump has definitely winked at the Alt-Right but he isn't Alt-Right himself.

A man with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far reaches of the internet, should never run our government or command our military.

If he doesnt respect respect all Americans, he cant serve all Americans!

Oh, because you're so virtuous yourself.

What about the Clinton Foundation being a direct link to the SoS's office? What about your support for regimes like Saudi Arabia? What about your own top aide (Huma Abedin) who used to edit a Muslim magazine that blamed America for 9/11? Or your documented hatred of Jews?

If Donald Trump can't respect all Americans, then Hillary Clinton is an existensial threat to America.

The rest of the speech goes into the Alt-Right who I refuse to defend because they are white supremecists. It's true that they love Trump but he doesn't encapsulate their beliefs. But as I said, Trump hasn't done himself any favours.

The important thing to take away from this is that Hillary Clinton is in no position to claim that Donald Trump hates blacks. Not only is it not true, but rather it is possible to make the claim that Hillary has treated the black community with more contempt than Donald Trump ever could.

The more I talk about Hillary, the more venom comes out. But all of it is justified. She wants to abolish the 2nd ammendment (meanwhile, I may start petitioning the Knesset for our own version of the 2nd Ammendment), remove the right to free speech and freedom of religion and allow radical Islam into the USA.

If Donald Trump stays true to what he said about black communities (and I actually think he will because that speech wasn't full of bluster), he will be the best President for blacks in decades. Hands down.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[-Cynthia-]

Incorrect.

That speech he had on race a few weeks ago was spot on the money (as I said earlier). Hillary then went out and tried to claim that Trump was "racist" because he was pointing out all the problems with black communities and saying "stop voting Democrat because they're not helping you".

That's PC at work. When it is considered bigotry to point out legitimate concerns in a minority community.

I think that it is the only policy that he won't flip on because it makes sense and he knows it.

For all your claims of the left crying racism over everything, you completely disregarded my point about Trump's inconsistent economic policy stances to talk about racism.

Hillary Clinton is not in support of abolishing the second amendment. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/11/donald-trump/donald-trump-falsely-claims-hillary-clinton-wants-/ Your other claims are just propaganda with no basis in facts or policy. This is Serious Discussion, not 'rail against the candidate we don't like'.

[Life]

For all your claims of the left crying racism over everything, you completely disregarded my point about Trump's inconsistent economic policy stances to talk about racism.

Hillary Clinton is not in support of abolishing the second amendment. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/11/donald-trump/donald-trump-falsely-claims-hillary-clinton-wants-/ Your other claims are just propaganda with no basis in facts or policy. This is Serious Discussion, not 'rail against the candidate we don't like'.

Oh, Trump's economic plan? Terrible.

And Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd ammendment. Gun control to her means "no guns". Why else would she praise Australia, a country with violent crimes on the rise?

Edit: Cannot be proved true.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[-Cynthia-]

And Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd ammendment. Gun control to her means "no guns". Why else would she praise Australia, a country with violent crimes on the rise?

As cited, she's repeatedly stated that she wants to maintain the right to bear arms while calling for measures such as stricter background checks, not selling to domestic abusers or the mentally ill or people on the no fly list. Looking into a voluntary buyback program is not the same as abolishing all guns. This strawman argument about gun control is extremely tiresome and prevents people from actually discussing the nuances of it.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Oh, Trump's economic plan? Terrible.

And Hillary wants to abolish the 2nd ammendment. Gun control to her means "no guns". Why else would she praise Australia, a country with violent crimes on the rise?

Erm, I live in Australia and I've heard nothing about violent crime being 'on the rise'. Care to explain?

[Life]

As cited, she's repeatedly stated that she wants to maintain the right to bear arms while calling for measures such as stricter background checks, not selling to domestic abusers or the mentally ill or people on the no fly list. Looking into a voluntary buyback program is not the same as abolishing all guns. This strawman argument about gun control is extremely tiresome and prevents people from actually discussing the nuances of it.

1) Gun buyback program was mandatory. Twice. Go look it up.

2) The no-fly list is a joke. Want proof? Edward Kennedy and David Cole on the no-fly list.

The no-fly list is a "may be linked to terrorism/government doesn't like you" list that involves no due process, no appeal and no basis. If the government doesn't like you, you're on the no-fly list for life.

Congrats, you've used a totalitarian idea to strip people of their basis right to self-defense.

3) Background checks are already at the highest level possible. Tell me, how many legal gun owners have gone around mass murdering people. Ballpark.

As homework, I want you to look into the case of Neil Steinberg.

You are parroting myths about gun control without understanding them. It's not a strawman argument when you continue to spread misinformation as if it were fact.

I don't care that Hillary Clinton says that she doesn't want to abolish the 2nd ammendment. She also said that she didn't leak department secrets (false), she had provided all the emails on her private server (false) and that the Clinton Foundation would operate independent of the Clintons before becoming SoS (false).

Her actions and rhetoric lead me to believe that she wants a defenseless populace.

As for violent crime in Australia, I retract that one because it hasn't significantly increased or decreased. Misread something by accident.

EDIT:

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-30-clinton-emails-20160830-snap-story,amp.html

I'm done here.

You had info about Benghazi on your private server? And you lied about it?

What the absolute fuck, woman?

Edited August 31, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Time the Crestfallen]

As for violent crime in Australia, I retract that one because it hasn't significantly increased or decreased. Misread something by accident.

Well, except for mass-shootings that is. We haven't had a single one since the Port Arthur massacre, which is what made us put in place gun restrictions in the first place.

[Lord Raven]

Politifact says Trump lies a significant order of magnitude more than Hillary..... I'm not sure why you believe one over the other. It's not like Hillary would ever make a motion to get anything past beyond proper gun control.

The argument of "she lied about other things so she's a damn liar" is not an argument. It allows you to draw skepticism but you cannot justify that skepticism rationally by anything anyone has said. You can justify the other things (which have been exaggerated - and I'll talk more about that when I get home). You're actually making a ton of strawman arguments that you refuse to acknowledge as strawman, which is why I'm leaning more towards not saying anything further since you just spend all your time jumping on people, being emotional, and misrepresenting arguments.

EDIT: This is an ultimatum. Until you learn to control your emotions and apply logic to your posts, I am no longer responding to anything you say. Shit like this:

I'm done here.

You had info about Benghazi on your private server? And you lied about it?

and this:

I don't care that Hillary Clinton says that she doesn't want to abolish the 2nd ammendment. She also said that she didn't leak department secrets (false), she had provided all the emails on her private server (false) and that the Clinton Foundation would operate independent of the Clintons before becoming SoS (false).

Where you are extrapolating something from something else unrelated is the kind of shit I'm talking about. I require sources from you from the woman herself saying that she plans to abolish the second amendment. I also demand sources about what these emails are about. You're seeing one little bit of suspicion and somehow connecting another bit of suspicion to it.

You're also really missing Cynthia's point about what the fuck gun control is allowed. "No fly list is bullshit" is completely unrelated to her point. You repeatedly do this, and you repeatedly get into a tangential argument that goes far off topic.

You're also denying that Trump is a racist or a bigot. Trump suggested the banning of Muslims from immigrating into this country, not refugees, just anyone. Trump suggested that most of the Mexican immigrants who come are rapists and criminals. Trump also said that he would strengthen libel laws - this is straight from the horse's mouth, and this is a form of information control that Trump is gunning for despite non Trump supporters shitting on CTR and despite him extending them beyond what they can do now - which is still fairly strong. He wants to restrict your rights about as much as you think Hillary does.

I also don't know why you're so bent out of shape and emotional. Me, from a Pakistani background and a Muslim family, and from the lower class, while also being a scientist, has a lot to lose if Trump gets elected. If anything, people like me should get our panties in a twist more over this, and frankly I fucking am which is why I continue to entertain you. But as it stands, you're irrationally emotional over this shit, and I'm doing everything in my power to keep my emotions in check. You have never even lived in this country, so what is your issue with our politics? I'm not saying don't comment, I'm saying what everyone else is saying; you have never been American in your life and therefore this election doesn't affect you as directly as it affects an American citizen, especially a minority who has continuously been told by Republicans that I'm incompetent, mooching off the system, and on top of all a fucking terrorist and that my kind should be taken out of this country. What the hell have they been saying about Jews in Israel or Canada? That they know how to count money and negotiate? (Because Trump actually said the latter in many scenarios, in case the stereotype pisses you off).

Edited August 31, 2016 by Lord Raven

[-Cynthia-]

1) Gun buyback program was mandatory. Twice. Go look it up.

From the link I posted, Clinton's thought was that the program would be optional. "The full context of Clinton’s response, however, suggests she may have misspoken or not fully understood Australia’s program, as she also evoked voluntary buybacks as potential models for a U.S. program.

"Communities have done that in our country. Several communities have done gun buyback programs. But I think it would be worth considering on the national level if that could be arranged," she said, before comparing the buybacks to Cash for Clunkers, the Obama administration’s voluntary vehicle trade-in program."

2) The no-fly list is a joke. Want proof? Edward Kennedy and David Cole on the no-fly list.

The no-fly list is a "may be linked to terrorism/government doesn't like you" list that involves no due process, no appeal and no basis. If the government doesn't like you, you're on the no-fly list for life.

Congrats, you've used a totalitarian idea to strip people of their basis right to self-defense.

So it's acceptable that a 'totalitarian idea' is used to strip people of the ability to fly (which for most people has more of a practical function than a gun)? Your argument is against the no-fly list itself, not arguing that people who can't ride in an airplane should be able to have a gun.

3) Background checks are already at the highest level possible. Tell me, how many legal gun owners have gone around mass murdering people. Ballpark.

As homework, I want you to look into the case of Neil Steinberg.

I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence, anecdotal evidence is weak.

The United States doesn't even have universal background checks for firearm sales. Most people who commit gun crimes who were prohibited from buying guns do so through private sellers and avoiding background checks. Repealing background checks has been shown to increase gun violence. Background checks are correlated with decreased suicides, even when controlling for other possible factors. Universal background checks are also widely supported.

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/#footnote_20_99

You are parroting myths about gun control without understanding them. It's not a strawman argument when you continue to spread misinformation as if it were fact.

You have anecdotes and some blanket statements. Where are your facts?

I don't care that Hillary Clinton says that she doesn't want to abolish the 2nd ammendment. She also said that she didn't leak department secrets (false), she had provided all the emails on her private server (false) and that the Clinton Foundation would operate independent of the Clintons before becoming SoS (false).

Donald Trump wants to round up all Mexicans and kill them. He's never actually said this or explictly hinted at it, but he's lied about other things so it must be true! See how absurd that is? It is a strawman argument when you claim people hold a position they don't actually have.

[Tangerine]

Politifact says Trump lies a significant order of magnitude more than Hillary..... I'm not sure why you believe one over the other. It's not like Hillary would ever make a motion to get anything past beyond proper gun control.

Politifact is also owned by a company that is endorsing Clinton - and you need only investigate their history of endorsements to see where their allegiance lies. Politifact has been caught multiple times giving pubs "false" ratings and cherry picking for the most minute details, the most ridiculous being when they take expressions and phrases at face value for the sake of not giving someone a true rating. Their information and research is useful, but their conclusions shouldn't always be referenced, they're often as subjective as anyone else's take on it.

Just saying, politifact is not an academic, unbiased resource that proves beyond all doubt which candidate is most honest. I'm not going to say Trump is more honest, but I'm also not interested in getting into the severity of Clinton's lies. Who cares which of them is the most honest when they're both so dishonest they aren't worthy of anyone's confidence?

What the hell have they been saying about Jews in Israel or Canada? That they know how to count money and negotiate?

Uhhh, also just saying, Jews are by far the victims of the most religiously motivated hate crimes even today, including in the US according to FBI statistics. It's extremely under reported by mainstream media. You might not want to get into an argument about why Jews (or anyone for that matter) might be invested in politics around the globe lol?

Edited August 31, 2016 by Tangerine

[Life]

@ Raven: I jump down someone's throat when they repeat false information as fact. But let me say something quickly.

- There is logic in my posts. You simply don't like the opinion so you dismiss it out of hand. Otherwise, explaining why gang crime is the main factor for why black communities suffer would have been rebutted.

- I have not said that Trump is not racist or a bigot in general. Ever. If you want to accuse me of a strawman argument, that's probably the biggest one.

What I said is that Trump is not racist against the black community if he dares to actually name the real problems and offer a solution.

- My problem with Hillary isn't that she's a liar. It's that she's A) corrupt, B) commited perjury, C) will attempt to remove constitutional rights if she can and she'll still be PotUS.

- As for why I care. Why shouldn't I? Because I'm not American?

The American election affects the entire world, whether you like it or not. That's the power of the American empire.

Here's why it directly concerns me. If Hillary wins, Hamas will continue to receive funds. We'll have another war, we'll be villified and then maybe the USA will decide that enough is enough and it is time to end "gross human rights violations" by sending airstrikes against us. I live less than a kilometer away from the Israeli central command building.

Yeah, I said it. If Hillary is elected President, I'm worried that there's a chance (a small one but it's definitely there after considering the last 8 years) that I'm not living in 4 years.

That's why I care. Feel free to say that that's crazy talk but it's the general underlying feeling in this country.

- I get that you have a lot to lose if Trump is elected. That's a fair stance. But lots of other people have lots to lose too from Hillary Clinton being President.

I'm not saying "don't be selfish". But understand you're not the only dog in this fight.

@ Cynthia:

1) Obama's also praised the Australian buyback program. I'm pretty sure that if he could, he would have passed laws like that after blaming San Bernadino and Orlando on "gun violence" rather than a terrorist attack by radical Islam.

2) Flying on an airplane is not a fundamental human right. Self preservation is. So yes, the no fly list should not have any bearing on buying a gun or not.

3) OK, this one is annoying.

You cannot legally buy a firearm without a background check. There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. Private sellers must conduct background checks.

This is law. Stop saying "no, it doesn't happen". Anyone who has bought a gun legally will be able to point out that these claims are false.

Suicide is going to happen no matter what. If someone jumps in front of a train, do we blame the train? If someone ODs on drugs, do we jump down phamasuedicals throats?

Suicide is bad. Nobody is saying that it isn't. But background checks do not exist to ward off suicide. They exist to ward off threats to other people.

I do want to make sure that I know what you're asking for. Are you saying that full medical info should be required for buying a gun?

4) I am asking you to fact check me because I don't think you've ever bought a gun before. The best way to fact check me is by attempting to buy a gun yourself. You don't even have to pay, feel free to walk out once they say "hey, we gotta do a mandatory background check".

I'm considering gifting you a gun as proof. I buy it and you still have to fill out background information in order to acquire it.

Last thing: "Jews count money or negotiate" is the least of my worries. Try the idea of "the only good Jew is a dead Jew" mentality that has existed for millenia.

There are 13 million Jews in the world (of 7 billion people) and about something like 75% of the population hates us. If you want to talk victimization (which is not something I use in any argument), I bet you that we have it worse off than you.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Time the Crestfallen]

1) Obama's also praised the Australian buyback program. I'm pretty sure that if he could, he would have passed laws like that after blaming San Bernadino and Orlando on "gun violence" rather than a terrorist attack by radical Islam.

Well he has a point. I mean, the Aussie buy-back program worked. I used to think that since it worked for us and Europe, why didn't the US do it? But then there was that thread about the Orlando shooting and several people explained why I was wrong to think that (cheers Rezzy). It's not that a buyback program is an inherently bad idea, but more that a gun buyback program wouldn't work in the US because of cultural factors and other such things.

[Life]

Well he has a point. I mean, the Aussie buy-back program worked. I used to think that since it worked for us and Europe, why didn't the US do it? But then there was that thread about the Orlando shooting and several people explained why I was wrong to think that (cheers Rezzy). It's not that a buyback program is an inherently bad idea, but more that a gun buyback program wouldn't work in the US because of cultural factors and other such things.

Because it is a violation of the right to self-preservation if it is a mandatory buyback policy. Which means that men with guns show up to your house and use force to get you to surrender your right to self-defense.

Please look at the dissenting opinions from District of Columbia v. Heller. In a legal fashion, there are only two tennable positions: the Second Ammendment as is or no guns at all. No gun control reforms, no magazine capacity arguments... either guns or no guns.

[Yojinbo]

I'm a bit confused about what you're really arguing against here. Over the last like 20 pages or so the only argument that's been brought up in Hillary's favor is that she's less a sack of shit than Dolan is. If anybody said that he's actually a good president and that they'd gladly vote her I must've missed it.

Though I can personally see why you as somebody who doesn't live in the USA would be scared of the prospect of Hillary becoming the next president. I, for one, do not fancy the thought of getting dragged into a world-war against Russia myself so I'd prefer just about anybody else as a president over her. But you can you really argue that it's wrong for somebody living in the USA to reject Dolan like that? I mean, the majority of people that support him - supposedly "angry white men afraid of losing their jobs" - will vote directly against their own economic interests. It's not far-fetched to assume that this can have catastrophical consequences.