American Politics

[Philia]

 

[M3J]

He was ahead in 2 or 3 polls of which one was a fox poll.
And he was not far ahead in those.

His numbers dropped severely, he is out of money, he has internal trouble with his staff and clinton hasnt even really started yet.
It's really not looking good for him:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

The polls in which trump won were outliers in a longtime trend which speaks clearly for clinton.

I want to say this is marvelous, but

1) Hillary is still bad
2) UK was dumb enough to vote leave EU. US is likely dumb enough to vote Trump when the time comes
3) Many current Trump supporters stated they're voting for Trump due to the actions of Trump protesters and opposers, which is bad if this keeps up
4) Did I mention I don't trust Americans? just look at the logic of gun defenders

I did read, its just further proof that in an area with less of a gun industry events will still happen, hence the need for no changes to current gun legislature. Let us continue to have free access to our recreational devices please.

--

My candidate is going to continue in politics, hyped.

Reading the first three sentences isn't reading. It is also not a proof, and it's still better than what happens in the US because no one died.

I do not understand why you are against bad people not being able to buy guns. You claim to support lives and be against terrorism, but you're supporting letting anyone get guns, whether they're potential terrorists, bad guys, robbers, or gangsters. If you're a good person, you won't be affected by stricter gun control laws, all that'll happen is that you get your gun later. I fail to understand why so many people are against preventing bad people from getting guns.

It's pretty clear you don't give a shit about lives and aren't moralistic or ethical, though. You've proven that many times over and over, and I'm sure Jesus or God can call you out on your bullshit. You can't claim to be anti-abortion because it's murder, but be against stricter gun control when it can prevent mass murders from occurring constantly.

Whats the point of seat belts when alcohol is legal and people will drive under the influence or be distracted by passengers and cell phones. Until those are banned, then there is no need for more gun control.

Why the absolute fuck are you comparing cars to guns? Guns are meant to hurt or kill people while cars are meant to transport people. All you can say is that DUI and gun control laws need to be stricter and be upheld, but other than that it's stupid to compare both. When you claim guns are recreational devices, do you mean shooting people is recreational and fun? Because that's what most people are using guns for, to shoot people (and animals).

And asking the point of seat belt? Holy hell, are all you conservatives this ignorant or far-reaching? You don't know what the point of seat belts are, drunk driving or not?

 

[shionoro]

@M3J

Well, the polls about the US election, exspecially at this point, are a lot more trustworthy than polls about the brexit (since the brexit is something that never happened and there was, until the end, a large number of undecided people, even larger than in the US election. And it was always a close bet, even in the polls).

I know you don't like clinton while i think she will make a good president, but i am glad it won't be trump, even if it is still horrifying that enough americans would vote for him to make him nominated in the first place.
I mean, yes, the other republicans minus Kasich were partially even more dangerous than him, but still).

Also, the brits will come back at some point At least parts of their state will.

 

[M3J]

US is truly UK's child. UK voted to leave like derptards, and US are voting for Trump like derptard juniors.

 

[kkck]

I am thinking the brexit thing will end up hurting trump as time goes by. So far the exit has evaporated billions of pounds and it is pretty much a fact that going through with it will hurt british exports in the long run... And trump is supposed to be in favor of it. No self respecting half assed businessman would ever support brexit, it is specifically bad for business to do such a thing. I guess it depends on whether trump's opposition is able to capitalize on it. Heck, the whole thing has not even started and it might cause a global recession... And trump would have been in favor of it.... Well, this opinion of mine is based on common sense (because global financial disaster that will take years or decades to recover from = bad) and that is clearly not a god dammed thing nowadays....

 

[shionoro]

A lot of britains are already disappointed with their choice, because the guys who provclaimed how much money the brexit brings are now all like 'oh well it will take some years to see benefits and the 360 million number might have been exaggerated'.

They basically admit they lied, and the britains notice that now.

Might be a goodsign on the long run if people notice right wingers and populists lie.

 

[kkck]

A lot of britains are already disappointed with their choice, because the guys who provclaimed how much money the brexit brings are now all like 'oh well it will take some years to see benefits and the 360 million number might have been exaggerated'.

They basically admit they lied, and the britains notice that now.

Might be a goodsign on the long run if people notice right wingers and populists lie.

Isn't the 360 mil thing true? As in being in the EU costs that much. The issue would be that that was not actually something expensive... Unless it is a different 360 I am thinking about.

 

[shionoro]

Isn't the 360 mil thing true? As in being in the EU costs that much. The issue would be that that was not actually something expensive... Unless it is a different 360 I am thinking about.

It's really not. Britain also gets EU money back and since many other factors get more expensive for britain now they have to spend more money than before.

As far as i know, with the money the UK got back from the EU directly it was more along the lines of 190 million, which is roughly the cost it has to spend now to access the EU market,

 

[SharkBait]

the point is that we know that their usage reduced fatalities in car crashes very reliably and very significantly, while lax gun laws make mass shootings more likely.

We dont know that. The countries could just have lower population and less land than US so the number of shootings involving mass numbers of people could be of comparable proportional level to the US. Additionally, it could be that because we have more people there are just more angry neglected people here meaning its not the gun laws but rather the number of angry people that cause more mass shootings.

You would hardly say 'there is no need to fight against terrorism because drunk driving kills much more people per year than terrorists in the US'.

Terrorists are a worst threat than Drunk Driving though, look at the heinous crimes the terrorists inflect on people worldwide. It is our duty as the city shining on a hill to squash and crush all terrorists and bring freedom to the world.

I do not understand why you are against bad people not being able to buy guns. You claim to support lives and be against terrorism, but you're supporting letting anyone get guns, whether they're potential terrorists, bad guys, robbers, or gangsters

Are gangsters, robbers, "bad guys", "potential terrorists" really not going to bypass whatever strict gun control laws there are. Its not like any law proposed is going to have a mass gun trade in program and everyone is going to trade in their guns. How would that work, we already see news reports of groups robbing gun stores, so even if the guns you propose are eliminated, these people will just access them from the stores before the culling takes place. Even worst, the guns are still out there, theres no way to get rid of them.

Im simply supporting the idea of people being able to exercise their god given right to own a firearm as proposed in our founding fathers documentation. You and others are supporting the idea of stepping on peoples rights and civil liberties for the sake of a few divergents. Gun control people would probably support racial profiling, financial profiling, and familial bias which is going backwards on all the things our ancestors fought against.

It's pretty clear you don't give a shit about lives and aren't moralistic or ethical, though. You've proven that many times over and over, and I'm sure Jesus or God can call you out on your bullshit. You can't claim to be anti-abortion because it's murder, but be against stricter gun control when it can prevent mass murders from occurring constantly.

Its unethical and immoral to prevent good natured citizens from accessing these types of recreational devices for the sake of punishing divergents though.

I care about the lives of all Americans both the born and the unborn. Do you?

When you claim guns are recreational devices, do you mean shooting people is recreational and fun? Because that's what most people are using guns for, to shoot people (and animals).

Hunting is a popular pastime, Im quite sure this is fun, why else are their numerous deer hunting contests using...guess what...firearms. Most people are using guns for recreational pastimes as I continue to stress. I dont see any data that suggests the number of shot people in the US exceeds that of the number of shot animals.

 

[shionoro]

We dont know that. The countries could just have lower population and less land than US so the number of shootings involving mass numbers of people could be of comparable proportional level to the US. Additionally, it could be that because we have more people there are just more angry neglected people here meaning its not the gun laws but rather the number of angry people that cause more mass shootings.

There is a clear correlation to General gun violence compared to how lax gun laws are.
You can hardly deny that.
So as i said: Dont try actinv as if gun violence is such big of a Problem in other countries too.
It isnt. The only western Country in which gun violence is a significant Problem is the US, and it is the only western countries in which Shootings and Terrorist (homegro´wn Terrorists, i might add) attacks happen on almost daily Basis.

It sure as hell does not happen in Germany.
As i said, lets compare the thousands of gun violence victims u have in the US per year to the maybe dozen Germany has per year.

You wanna tell me that in Germany, a denser opoulated Country, there are hundred times less angry People in percentage number than in the US?

I feel flattered but i dont think so.

Are gangsters, robbers, "bad guys", "potential terrorists" really not going to bypass whatever strict gun control laws there are. Its not like any law proposed is going to have a mass gun trade in program and everyone is going to trade in their guns. How would that work, we already see news reports of groups robbing gun stores, so even if the guns you propose are eliminated, these people will just access them from the stores before the culling takes place. Even worst, the guns are still out there, theres no way to get rid of them.

We know from other countries that in fact it makes it harder for terrorists and 'bad guys'. It is as if you are asking whether ou should not have anti Terror measurements because the terrorists are good enough to Bypass them anywaya.

 

[M3J]

Are gangsters, robbers, "bad guys", "potential terrorists" really not going to bypass whatever strict gun control laws there are. Its not like any law proposed is going to have a mass gun trade in program and everyone is going to trade in their guns. How would that work, we already see news reports of groups robbing gun stores, so even if the guns you propose are eliminated, these people will just access them from the stores before the culling takes place. Even worst, the guns are still out there, theres no way to get rid of them.

Bad guys can't get guns, so they have to find another way to get guns. Makes it harder for them to get guns one way or another. Even if they decide to rob gun stores, security can make that harder or make it more likely that they get caught.

Which is why I can't support gun bans, otherwise that's far much better than stricter gun control laws. Unfortunately, allowing guns make sense, but stricter gun control laws is better than nothing. I don't understand why gun defenders fail to understand this. Might as well legalize bombs too because what if the government tries to raid my home? I gotta protect myself, don't I!?!?!?!

Im simply supporting the idea of people being able to exercise their god given right to own a firearm as proposed in our founding fathers documentation. You and others are supporting the idea of stepping on peoples rights and civil liberties for the sake of a few divergents. Gun control people would probably support racial profiling, financial profiling, and familial bias which is going backwards on all the things our ancestors fought against.

Oh, I didn't know God supported people owning tools that ended lives. God is even more of an asshole than I thought! Sad!

Few divergents? Do you know how many gun homicides occur every year? That's more than a few divergents. I don't get why you and others are supporting the idea of stepping on peoples rights and civil liberties to live without fear of danger. Many people can't go to theaters in fear of being massacred, and many people stopped finding places like churches safe thanks to a white terrorist. Hell, even kids in schools are not completely safe from mass shooting. Don't they have a right to live, or do you not care as you're not affected?

Well, you support racial and financial profiling more than any gun control people I know. Incidentally, Daily News or NY Post pointed out that ever since stop and frisk was considered illegal (especially due to racial profiling), gun violence in NYC went up. Gun control law got less strict, and gun violence went up. Hmm, I wonder.

Its unethical and immoral to prevent good natured citizens from accessing these types of recreational devices for the sake of punishing divergents though.

I care about the lives of all Americans both the born and the unborn. Do you?

That's pretty dumb. There's nothing unethical or immoral in preventing people from accessing weapons made to kill. And the way you keep calling guns recreational is scary because it indicates you consider killing humans recreational.

No, you have made it completely clear you do not care about lives of anyone but your own. Everything you have said shows you pretend to care just so you don't look like a bad guy, when in reality you'd be willing to step over people and even let them die. Nothing you said has ever indicated you genuinely care, and if you did then you would support stricter gun control laws, welfare for needy families, and allowing refugees (especially children) whose lives are in danger in their home countries to come into the US, legal or illegal. Instead, you make up fantasies and lie about how they're dangerous with little to no proof, and make up all sorts of bullshit. Almost everyone who has read your posts knows you don't care about lives.

And you seem to be a hypocrite. You complain about people trampling over your rights to own guns, but you trample all over women's rights to do whatever they want with their bodies and to seek good healthcare. You also seem to be against terrorism, but you also seem not to mind terrorists being able to acquire guns legally. Stricter gun laws won't affect good citizens; if they can't wait few days to get guns, then that's a sign they don't deserve to own weapons that can end lives.

Hunting is a popular pastime, Im quite sure this is fun, why else are their numerous deer hunting contests using...guess what...firearms. Most people are using guns for recreational pastimes as I continue to stress. I dont see any data that suggests the number of shot people in the US exceeds that of the number of shot animals.

Most people also use guns to kill people.

Hunting is pretty bad, because it's still ending lives. And it doesn't matter if more animals are killed than people, the fact is that too many people are killed by firearms, and that needs to stop. I cannot believe you are using this as defense, and that you seem to be okay with people being killed as long as it's fewer than animals being killed by firearms. You strike me as a potential psychopath.

---

The more I read about Trump, the more I hope Hillary (or Bernie if possible) beats Trump, as he truly is the worst choice. His supporters also seem to be hypocrites or selective.

 

[Franckie]

I want to say this is marvelous, but

1) Hillary is still bad
2) UK was dumb enough to vote leave EU. US is likely dumb enough to vote Trump when the time comes
3) Many current Trump supporters stated they're voting for Trump due to the actions of Trump protesters and opposers, which is bad if this keeps up
4) Did I mention I don't trust Americans? just look at the logic of gun defenders

5) Trump is guaranteed to get ~45% of the votes cast. Anyone with an R- in front of their name is automatically guaranteed ~45%.
6) Trump gets smarter by learning to dial back the cretinism a bit. This will help the #NeverTrumpers fall in line. They'll rationalize their support by Trump by stating something like "He seems to be finally growing into his role". That, and they fail to keep their resentment of Democrats/Hillary in check, causing them to fail to see the bigger picture.
7) Sanders remains bitter and fails to rally his troops, who are still convinced that Hillary Clinton is a corporate whore. So they stay home and fume instead of working to defeat Trump.
8) The media continues their practice of giving Trump's shenanigans free air time and the neverending false equivalence between the two parties instead of doing their jobs and pointing out that one party needs to be in a mental institution
9) Some big event like a terrorist attack or a recession occurs right before the election

I am thinking the brexit thing will end up hurting trump as time goes by. So far the exit has evaporated billions of pounds and it is pretty much a fact that going through with it will hurt british exports in the long run... And trump is supposed to be in favor of it. No self respecting half assed businessman would ever support brexit, it is specifically bad for business to do such a thing. I guess it depends on whether trump's opposition is able to capitalize on it. Heck, the whole thing has not even started and it might cause a global recession... And trump would have been in favor of it.... Well, this opinion of mine is based on common sense (because global financial disaster that will take years or decades to recover from = bad) and that is clearly not a god dammed thing nowadays....

Not that I would agree. If anything, it proves Trump-style politics pay off, even if the margins of victory are narrow. Brexit pretty much boiled down to one thing: an end to immigration. Many Brits, specifically the elderly, had reached their "breaking point" over the flow of immigrants. They didn't want any more Poles, Muslims, etc. in their country. Cultural anxieties are what is fueling Trump's campaign. It could happen here too. It just relies on Trump getting a little smarter and then a few things going his way.

 

[shionoro]

the americans know that it is actually possible to elect a very bad president through the bush era.
Many britains who voted brexit regret it now and said they just voted it because they thought it wouldnt happen anway (paradox, i know).

 

[Franckie]

The fact that the Americans responsible for electing Bush Jr. have learned nothing since then is not the main problem. The main problem is that said Americans have grown stupider and angrier with the passage of time, chiefly because of angst stemming from cultural changes, and could very well win the US presidency and torpedo the country (again!) with the antics we suffered during the gut-wrenching Bush years.

 

[xi0]

Bush being elected wasn't an indictment on much until he was re-elected. Bush had it a bit easy against the likes of Gore, who didn't have as much support due to his attachment to the Clinton administration. John Kerry wasn't a strong candidate either, and was up against it facing an incumbent president. The 2000 election was a joke by all accounts, but Bush being elected is nothing compared to the likes of Trump or Clinton being elected IMO. How their administration goes from there is another topic though.

 

[M3J]

the americans know that it is actually possible to elect a very bad president through the bush era.
Many britains who voted brexit regret it now and said they just voted it because they thought it wouldnt happen anway (paradox, i know).

Many will argue Bush was a good president or not as bad made out to be. No Trump supporter realizes what a bad choice he is, but they're likely blind and selective. The excuses they use to vote for Trump or at least not Hillary are enough proof.

 

[kkck]

5) Trump is guaranteed to get ~45% of the votes cast. Anyone with an R- in front of their name is automatically guaranteed ~45%.
6) Trump gets smarter by learning to dial back the cretinism a bit. This will help the #NeverTrumpers fall in line. They'll rationalize their support by Trump by stating something like "He seems to be finally growing into his role". That, and they fail to keep their resentment of Democrats/Hillary in check, causing them to fail to see the bigger picture.
7) Sanders remains bitter and fails to rally his troops, who are still convinced that Hillary Clinton is a corporate whore. So they stay home and fume instead of working to defeat Trump.
8) The media continues their practice of giving Trump's shenanigans free air time and the neverending false equivalence between the two parties instead of doing their jobs and pointing out that one party needs to be in a mental institution
9) Some big event like a terrorist attack or a recession occurs right before the election



Not that I would agree. If anything, it proves Trump-style politics pay off, even if the margins of victory are narrow. Brexit pretty much boiled down to one thing: an end to immigration. Many Brits, specifically the elderly, had reached their "breaking point" over the flow of immigrants. They didn't want any more Poles, Muslims, etc. in their country. Cultural anxieties are what is fueling Trump's campaign. It could happen here too. It just relies on Trump getting a little smarter and then a few things going his way.

I am not so sure trump is really guaranteed a 45% of the vote. Of course a lot can change in the following months but looking at the state of his campaign right now it simply does not look good for him. Trump is a candidate that his actual party hates. Trump's base in an incredibly small percentage of general election voters. The 14 mil people who win him the primary are simply not even remotely enough to win him the election. And now you have all 3 bushes abstaining from voting, romney is basically campaigning against him, lindsey graham also makes the point that he cannot in good conscience vote for trump... And you even have a few republican figures who have said they are voting for freaking clinton.
http://time.com/4317643/republican-party-donald-trump-ted-cruz-hillary-clinton-indiana/
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/richard-armitage-endorses-clinton-224431
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/richard-armitage-endorses-clinton-224431
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/05/03/3775104/never-trump-has-failed-republican-party/

If anything it kinda seems like trump would be better of abandoning his base and pandering to regular reublicans. Of course, the whole thing has been unpredictable the entire time. It is possible those guys change their minds. It is possible hillary gets indicted. It is plausible a terrorist attack gives trump a boost (though his words about the orlando shooting backfired...) It is plausible donald trump wins. But at least going by the information we have right now, it is overwhelmingly clear his actual party does not in any form or context stand with him. It is overwhelmingly clear general election voters straight up hate him.

I am not saying populism does not work of course, I am more than well aware of that. I think a bigger issue during the brexit vote was apathy, the notion that voting doesn't matter or count... Look at younger voters, scotland.... The places that were overtly anti brexit had the lowest turnout. Young voters were overwhelmingly anti brexit and also showed up less to vote. I am not sure how much of a thing "breget", it is way too early to say... But had people who actually wanted UK to stay in EU showed up as much as those who did not want to stay then the election IMO could have been very different. At least this should be a wake up call for dumbasses who think their vote does not matter (ask brexiters who did and didn't vote at the elections, it sure as hell did).... Or who think not voting makes in any form or context a statement. Even though "not voting" is literally doing absolutely nothing....

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 26, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 26, 2016 ---

Bush being elected wasn't an indictment on much until he was re-elected. Bush had it a bit easy against the likes of Gore, who didn't have as much support due to his attachment to the Clinton administration. John Kerry wasn't a strong candidate either, and was up against it facing an incumbent president. The 2000 election was a joke by all accounts, but Bush being elected is nothing compared to the likes of Trump or Clinton being elected IMO. How their administration goes from there is another topic though.

Isn't bush getting elected more of a reflection how screwed up the voting system at the US is? IIRC bush got more electoral districts but actually had less general election voters.... With that in mind I don't think it is fair to say bush had it easy with gore, if anything he won because the rules are messed up.

 

[xi0]

Isn't bush getting elected more of a reflection how screwed up the voting system at the US is? IIRC bush got more electoral districts but actually had less general election voters.... With that in mind I don't think it is fair to say bush had it easy with gore, if anything he won because the rules are messed up.

People make the argument that he did because they have the benefit of hindsight, I guess. The fact is he had the legacy, he had the experience in being an administrator, but he also had the benefit of Gore not being a strong candidate either.

 

[M3J]

I wonder how many radical Islamist leaders are hoping Trump wins the presidency.

 

[xi0]

I wonder how many radical Islamist leaders are hoping Trump wins the presidency.

This line of thinking has always been rather illogical. Radical Islamists don't need an excuse to go about their business, terrorist attacks didn't stop when Obama was elected either, and he's at times outright refused to mentioned "Terrorism" and "Islam" in the same sentence. So it makes no difference IMO.