American Politics

kkck

Waifu Slayer
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
46,249
Reaction score
24,902
Gender
Hidden
Country
Fire Nation
Well,
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
http://time.com/4173116/gun-control-barack-obama-polls/

People at the US in general actually do support more gun control. The republican party stance in that regard and subsequent congress blocking of changes to that is something that specifically stands at odds within their own voters.

The US is already the most powerful military force on earth and by any metric the strongest there has ever been even in relation to it's current rivals. Any notion that it isn't is simply a delusion not based on facts or any real information. Adding more money to an already insanely powerful military won't make the country safer. And adding money to the military certainly won't help stop cases like the one that just happened or the san bernardino one. The notion that it would is just irrational, the suggestion implies that adding money to fight threats overseas would somehow stop US homegrown terrorists where that extra money has no influence over.
 

xi0

あの術
最終形態 / Saishuu Keitai / Final Form
Administrator
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
65,177
Reaction score
30,212
Gender
Male
Country
Pyke
Wasn't he a bodyguard, he would have had a gun anyway?
He had a license to work as a security guard, as it's required in Florida. But owning a gun itself requires no licenses there. If he had to actually apply for a license to own a weapon and had a mandatory waiting period, there's a chance this could have been prevented. The fact that he bought the weapons he used so recently is rather damning of the laws in states like Florida. I don't own a gun, but I'm fine with the second amendment existing. But this entire situation is completely devoid of common sense. If someone wants to plan something like this and is forced to obtain weapons illegally, that makes them vulnerable to being caught before the act can take place.

The notion that it would is just irrational, the suggestion implies that adding money to fight threats overseas would somehow stop US homegrown terrorists where that extra money has no influence over.
It's the neo-con manifesto really. They're all too ready to shower money on businesses and enterprises they're involved in, like the military, fossil fuel industry, farming subsidies, the prison industry. But anything else is considered "waste". There are no true fiscal conservatives in that party anymore, and anyone who says differently yet still supports the GOP's platform is full of shit.
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
mass shootings have become routine apologies offered by him and he does little to do anyhing than issue a public prayer,
Just wanted to reiterate this double standard. I pointed out that all republican/gun loving politicians do is offer prayers and thoughts, and Shark asked "what else can they do?" even though these politicians have the power to pass stricter gun control laws or at least, take some sort of action. Yet, Shark has the nerve to point out Obama does little to nothing but offer prayers to victims and families of mass shootings when he can take action, which I doubt he can when these other gun-loving politicians don't support him. Even then, didn't he do something to make it harder to get guns?

Hmm, I wonder if this isn't the classic bias that makes you turn a blind eye. Seems like republicans or your side that you support can do bad things or take no action, and you'd have no issue, but if the side you're against react similarly, you chastise them. Bad!
 

SharkBait

MH Senpai
伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
14,069
Reaction score
6,930
Gender
Male
Country
United States
Just wanted to reiterate this double standard. I pointed out that all republican/gun loving politicians do is offer prayers and thoughts, and Shark asked "what else can they do?" even though these politicians have the power to pass stricter gun control laws or at least, take some sort of action. Yet, Shark has the nerve to point out Obama does little to nothing but offer prayers to victims and families of mass shootings when he can take action, which I doubt he can when these other gun-loving politicians don't support him. Even then, didn't he do something to make it harder to get guns?
But I dont want my politicians to do anything more than offer a sign of solidarity and thoughts and prayers. If Obama and gun fearing individuals do not want that then I dont see how I can support their misguided desires. And again, if he and gun fearing individuals truly want to show they can do more than offer thoughts and prayers then Im not seeing any tangible proof of their change being put in motion. Where's Clintons and Sanders proposed bills or being on bills passed with restricting gun control in any form? I dont see them.
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
You confuse the fuck out of me, and it's clear you have double standards. Why whine about Obama not doing anything about mass shootings, but claim you want politicians to do nothing? I do not understand how it is a misguided desire to prevent death and make sure bad people don't get guns. Are you okay with the mass shootings that go on? Do you not care that bad people get guns and kill others?

Likely because politicians block them as they are being paid by NRA and the gun industry. I don't know if Bernie or Hillary truly support stricter gun control, but I don't see what's wrong with that. It's sad that politicians and people like you would rather hold on to guns than try to ensure that fewer people are killed by guns.
 

SharkBait

MH Senpai
伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
14,069
Reaction score
6,930
Gender
Male
Country
United States
Are you okay with the mass shootings that go on? Do you not care that bad people get guns and kill others?
Im not okay with the mass shootings but theres more things going on in the country that needs to be focused on. The shootings dont really affect me or my area so I dont think gun control legislation needs to be pursued when people need food on the table and money in their pockets and jobs. People are struggling just to get by and dont have the luxury to go to clubs afterall.

It's sad that politicians and people like you would rather hold on to guns than try to ensure that fewer people are killed by guns.
When more for drunk driving and abortions is done then maybe I will let loose of guns.
 

xi0

あの術
最終形態 / Saishuu Keitai / Final Form
Administrator
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
65,177
Reaction score
30,212
Gender
Male
Country
Pyke
Im not okay with the mass shootings but theres more things going on in the country that needs to be focused on. The shootings dont really affect me or my area so I dont think gun control legislation needs to be pursued when people need food on the table and money in their pockets and jobs. People are struggling just to get by and dont have the luxury to go to clubs afterall.
I think it's really too easy for you to be apathetic to many social issues like this based solely on what is said here. The notion that something doesn't matter as much because it doesn't affect you is an easy attitude to have, but an unequivocally useless position all the same. So I suppose that you have to be involved in a mass shooting for you to feel like something should be done about it? This argument is nonsensical.

And what is with you and this false equivalency? Gun law reform is not a zero-sum game as far as issues the country is facing go...wtf...

When more for drunk driving and abortions is done then maybe I will let loose of guns.
"let loose of guns"? What? Haven't you said previously that you don't even own one yourself? or at least, you never confirmed or denied it, to my recollection.
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
Im not okay with the mass shootings but theres more things going on in the country that needs to be focused on. The shootings dont really affect me or my area so I dont think gun control legislation needs to be pursued when people need food on the table and money in their pockets and jobs. People are struggling just to get by and dont have the luxury to go to clubs afterall.
So, you're okay with the mass shootings, as long as you're not affected by it. Good to see you confirming you don't care about people's lives as long as it doesn't affect you in any way.

um, how are gun control legislation and food and money related? Besides, you don't give a shit about people needing food or money or jobs, based on the things you've said here. You don't care for their struggles, you're just using these people for agendas. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't bat an eye if they were murdered because of another mass shooting that could have been stopped if gun control laws were stricter.


When more for drunk driving and abortions is done then maybe I will let loose of guns.
Why should you care when abortions don't affect you at all? Before you talk about money going to abortions, it's pretty much a fact that no tax money goes towards abortion. I don't get how you can compare a fetus to a life that already exists and is either a kid or an adult. A fetus is still in its mom's womb, and it's the mom who makes the decision as it affects her body. A human who has been born has the right to live, which is more important than the "right" to own guns or assault rifles.

A drunk driver doesn't take out 50 people in one hour or one night, and cars are not meant to kill or hurt living things like guns are. Gun lovers who compare driving/drunk driving or knives or anything else to guns are idiots who don't understand the issues.
 

SharkBait

MH Senpai
伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
14,069
Reaction score
6,930
Gender
Male
Country
United States
Stuff like this is why people have negative views on democrats.
 

kkck

Waifu Slayer
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
46,249
Reaction score
24,902
Gender
Hidden
Country
Fire Nation
Stuff like this is why people have negative views on democrats.
What people exactly lol? If you are talking about republicans then they probably disliked democrats to begin with. And it is incredibly easy to find similar videos showing trump supporters as deranged nutjobs....

This one, one of many at that, is great:

 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
Stuff like this is why people have negative views on democrats.
did you point out Kim Davies refusing to marry two same-sex couple? Or a bakery denying a homosexual couple service?

I'm sure far more people have negative views of republicans and conservatives, and I know many non-Americans do.
 

SharkBait

MH Senpai
伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
14,069
Reaction score
6,930
Gender
Male
Country
United States
did you point out Kim Davies refusing to marry two same-sex couple? Or a bakery denying a homosexual couple service?

I'm sure far more people have negative views of republicans and conservatives, and I know many non-Americans do.
Our country was found on religious freedom so there is nothing wrong with them pursuing their religious beliefs in the work environment. Denying someone service on political belief is wrong, how could you morally justify it?
 

xi0

あの術
最終形態 / Saishuu Keitai / Final Form
Administrator
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
65,177
Reaction score
30,212
Gender
Male
Country
Pyke
did you point out Kim Davies refusing to marry two same-sex couple? Or a bakery denying a homosexual couple service?
Those aren't necessarily the same sort of thing IMO. Kim Davies is a county employee, representing the government. A bakery is a private business. Sure, I don't think that sort of discrimination should be going on either, but making it illegal and enforcing it is a hairy thing due to "religious freedom". If you're an employee of a government, you must meet certain standards, etc. Private businesses are a bit different.

And honestly, why would any couple want a cake from a bakery that doesn't respect their union and doesn't want their business anyway? The unspoken rule of not pissing off the people who handle your food kind of applies here.

Freedom of speech is the greatest enemy of bigoted thinking. Business owners who put themselves and their backward thinking out there do so by risking their reputation and social standing. A bakery in a small town doing such a thing risks their business being picketed, etc.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Our country was found on religious freedom so there is nothing wrong with them pursuing their religious beliefs in the work environment. Denying someone service on political belief is wrong, how could you morally justify it?
There is something most definitely wrong about pursuing religious beliefs at expense of other's personal freedoms and contradicting what your job asks of you.
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
Our country was found on religious freedom so there is nothing wrong with them pursuing their religious beliefs in the work environment. Denying someone service on political belief is wrong, how could you morally justify it?
You can't complain about Trump supporters being denied service but then say it's okay for a government employee or a business owner to do the same. You are such a hypocrite, and it seems if a conservative politician killed a homosexual, you'd have no issue but you'd be pissed if a liberal politician killed a Wall Street criminal out of self defense.

And if Kim Davies is religious, then how is it she's gotten divorce multiple times, when that seems to be against the Bible? It seems you don't care about homosexuals or anyone as long as it doesn't affect YOU.
Those aren't necessarily the same sort of thing IMO. Kim Davies is a county employee, representing the government. A bakery is a private business. Sure, I don't think that sort of discrimination should be going on either, but making it illegal and enforcing it is a hairy thing due to "religious freedom". If you're an employee of a government, you must meet certain standards, etc. Private businesses are a bit different.

And honestly, why would any couple want a cake from a bakery that doesn't respect their union and doesn't want their business anyway? The unspoken rule of not pissing off the people who handle your food kind of applies here.

Freedom of speech is the greatest enemy of bigoted thinking. Business owners who put themselves and their backward thinking out there do so by risking their reputation and social standing. A bakery in a small town doing such a thing risks their business being picketed, etc.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---

There is something most definitely wrong about pursuing religious beliefs at expense of other's personal freedoms and contradict what your job asks of you.
There's still discrimination, so that's same enough for me. Only difference is that Kim was more wrong because she's the employee of the government. At the very least, government employees should not engage in such discrimination act, while it should be up to the citizens how to deal with businesses like Chic Fil A (who incidentally did help the victims and helpers of the Orlando Shooting) and the bakery.

That is true. But they shouldn't have refused the business based on sexual orientation, I guess. And while this is true, I'm not sure just how much they risk with homosexual discrimination. Kim Davies was seen as a hero by many; Chic Fil A saw more sales from anti-homosexual people to counter the boycott; and people are defending the bakery's right to refuse service and would probably shop there more often just to support them. Though as you said, the bakery is in a small town while Chic-Fil-A is a national franchise/chain.
 

xi0

あの術
最終形態 / Saishuu Keitai / Final Form
Administrator
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
65,177
Reaction score
30,212
Gender
Male
Country
Pyke
There's still discrimination, so that's same enough for me. Only difference is that Kim was more wrong because she's the employee of the government. At the very least, government employees should not engage in such discrimination act, while it should be up to the citizens how to deal with businesses like Chic Fil A (who incidentally did help the victims and helpers of the Orlando Shooting) and the bakery.

That is true. But they shouldn't have refused the business based on sexual orientation, I guess. And while this is true, I'm not sure just how much they risk with homosexual discrimination. Kim Davies was seen as a hero by many; Chic Fil A saw more sales from anti-homosexual people to counter the boycott; and people are defending the bakery's right to refuse service and would probably shop there more often just to support them. Though as you said, the bakery is in a small town while Chic-Fil-A is a national franchise/chain.
Chic-Fil-A as a corporation is very "christian" as far as charity goes, that's why they're not open on Sundays and support groups who are against marriage equality, etc. But nothing they've done as a business (from my recollection) is in violation of the law or discriminatory in any way. So it's not really comparable either IMO.

Such stands are double-edged swords and depend on where the business is located usually, even in the digital age. I'm just saying that preventing private businesses from refusing customers on a religious basis through laws of some sort seems like a colossal waste of time.
 

SharkBait

MH Senpai
伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
14,069
Reaction score
6,930
Gender
Male
Country
United States
I think it's really too easy for you to be apathetic to many social issues like this based solely on what is said here. The notion that something doesn't matter as much because it doesn't affect you is an easy attitude to have, but an unequivocally useless position all the same. So I suppose that you have to be involved in a mass shooting for you to feel like something should be done about it? This argument is nonsensical.
How is it nonsensical? If an issue is affected people in the deserts of California, why should I care about it as someone living in the rural parts of Virginia. Okay the issue would affect me if it were about reducing harvesting fossil fuels in the areas as that in terms affects jobs across the whole industry which does affect the state I live. I can not identify how a shooting in [location that is not Virginia] affects me, then again we did have the Virginia Tech thing here while I was in college but that didnt make me want to restrict access to firearms, instead it made me wonder why more isnt done to assess the mental stability of stressed college students.

"let loose of guns"? What? Haven't you said previously that you don't even own one yourself? or at least, you never confirmed or denied it, to my recollection.
I support guns as that employs people, gun control measures would cause a decrease in firearms sales and production and thus create more loss of jobs and in term a loss of people participating in our statewide game and inland fisheries, leading to a collapsed recreational economy. It would be bad news across the board.

Besides, you don't give a shit about people needing food or money or jobs, based on the things you've said here. You don't care for their struggles, you're just using these people for agendas. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't bat an eye if they were murdered because of another mass shooting that could have been stopped if gun control laws were stricter.
Im not a bad person, I care about jobs and people have money. I do care for the struggles of successful people.

If Im wrong for not batting an eye for a mass shooting then I think others in the thread are wrong for not batting an eye at the millions of babies killed by abortions or the thousands of people murdered by people causing motor vehicle collisions as well as those under the influence.

I also see no proof that massacres can be prevented by stricter gun control laws.

Why should you care when abortions don't affect you at all? Before you talk about money going to abortions, it's pretty much a fact that no tax money goes towards abortion. I don't get how you can compare a fetus to a life that already exists and is either a kid or an adult. A fetus is still in its mom's womb, and it's the mom who makes the decision as it affects her body. A human who has been born has the right to live, which is more important than the "right" to own guns or assault rifles.
Abortions do affect me, it is my religious duty and right to prevent murders and Abortions are murders so it affects me. Even more money that is taken to our government officials through taxes is given to organizations that support abortions, thus, I should care.

And sorry the second she decides to have a baby she has surrendered all the rights of her body to those of the government and the baby. Your statement implies a potential mom to be has every right to smoke, do all sorts of illegal drugs, and drink and physically abuse her potential baby. Its her body so she has to right to.

There is something most definitely wrong about pursuing religious beliefs at expense of other's personal freedoms and contradict what your job asks of you.
I don't see what is wrong, a person baking a cake has every right to not bake the cake. I wonder would people feel better if "baking a cake" was done on an application basis, where you have to formally fill out an application to have your cake bake, and it can be denied with no rejection given. Would that make people feel better? Also how is "paying to have a cake made" a personal freedom? They can just make their own cake.

If you meant under the government, well at the time she took the job there was nothing there that said she had to forfeit her religious beliefs to pursue the job. Should the government deny Christian believers the right to work? They cant because they cant discriminate against religion. Oops, I think there is a huge issue here, how can she be punished for exercising a religious right, when the government cant get in the way of religion and also cant fire someone over religion...Clearly, legally, there is nothing wrong with what she did. And morally, again, who am I to be on the moral high ground and judge her for exercising out her right in America, it would be against the American dream.
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
Chic-Fil-A as a corporation is very "christian" as far as charity goes, that's why they're not open on Sundays and support groups who are against marriage equality, etc. But nothing they've done as a business (from my recollection) is in violation of the law or discriminatory in any way. So it's not really comparable either IMO.

Such stands are double-edged swords and depend on where the business is located usually, even in the digital age. I'm just saying that preventing private businesses from refusing customers on a religious basis through laws of some sort seems like a colossal waste of time.
Interestingly, Chic-Fil-A also gives money to anti-homosexual groups, but I'm not 100% sure if this is real as the sources are liberal. They say these groups kill or attack homosexuals, too. I thought Chic-Fil-A discriminated homosexuals, or at least they did in some areas.

I know, which is why I said we should leave it up to people. Let them boycott the business or give it more support if they want.

Im not a bad person, I care about jobs and people have money. I do care for the struggles of successful people.

If Im wrong for not batting an eye for a mass shooting then I think others in the thread are wrong for not batting an eye at the millions of babies killed by abortions or the thousands of people murdered by people causing motor vehicle collisions as well as those under the influence.

I also see no proof that massacres can be prevented by stricter gun control laws.
From your posts here, you definitely seem to be a bad person. You support bad and illegal activities if it comes from someone or a group that you support, but you can't handle mistakes from a group or person that you're against, and you seem not to care about anything that doesn't affect you directly. You proved it by saying you care for the struggles of successful people, as if anyone who isn't successful is beneath your notice no matter how hard they work or how they have been screwed over by these "successful" people. besides, I doubt successful people meet as much struggles given they can afford a lot of things.

Can you prove that millions of fetuses are killed? The difference between mass murder and moms getting abortion is that it's the moms' choice, while the victims don't get a choice in being shot at. They die for no reason, while the mothers get abortion because they can't afford to have babies, they were raped and don't want to give birth to the rapists' babies, or the fetuses affect their lives. Are all gun lovers such idiots that they have to compare guns, tools made to kill or end lives, to cars, whose purpose is to transport people? I'm pretty sure we're all affected by people who cause motor vehicle collisions due to drunk driving or reckless driving, but unlike mass shooting it doesn't claim 40+ victims in one night from one person.

Didn't UK ban guns? How many massacres do you see? The only news I know of is one female politician was shot few days ago and killed. What about in Australia? Or most countries in Europe? The two mass shootings I can recall were the Paris tragedy and the Oslo shooting, both done by terrorists. I'm pretty sure the US is in other countries' news a lot due to mass shootings, and it's one of the reasons why the country and its people are seen as jokes.



Abortions do affect me, it is my religious duty and right to prevent murders and Abortions are murders so it affects me. Even more money that is taken to our government officials through taxes is given to organizations that support abortions, thus, I should care.

And sorry the second she decides to have a baby she has surrendered all the rights of her body to those of the government and the baby. Your statement implies a potential mom to be has every right to smoke, do all sorts of illegal drugs, and drink and physically abuse her potential baby. Its her body so she has to right to.
It does not affect you, nor is it your duty or right to prevent one form of murder but encourage another form, which is worse. Clearly murder doesn't affect you, otherwise you'd support stricter gun regulations or be against guns. The tax money given to organizations that support abortions are used for things like STD testing, condoms, and other things. None of that is used for abortion, and these organizations would get in trouble if they did use the tax money for that.

It seems you'd rather take away women's rights and freedom under the bullshit pretense of caring about fetuses. You're a liar because you don't care about lives. You're perfectly willing to let children die and seem to encourage mass shootings. The main difference between a fetus and an adult is that the fetus is not a human yet.

Nope, it's still her body, still her right. And I'm pretty sure if the woman decided to have a baby, she wouldn't be getting an abortion. You accuse Obama living in a fantasy world, but you make it more and more clear that you're the one who lives in a fantasy world where you don't know the reality or truth, just lies and bullshit that you've heard and created.

Yes she does have the right to smoke, drink, and do whatever she wants while she's pregnant, unfortunately. Instead of focusing on babies that haven't been born yet, focus on the babies that have been born and the kids who grow up with bad parents or in bad environment.

Thankfully, you can't do anything about women getting abortion because not only did the government give them the freedom and right, but even if they ban it women will still get abortion illegally. You should mind your own business and not dictate what women can do with their bodies, and then complain about people wanting stricter gun regulations or wanting guns banned.



From all your posts so far in this thread, I have concluded that you are a selfish, horrible person who has lived a sheltered life and lives in a fantasy world, and that you have not experienced reality or know anyone who actually has experienced hardship. And it disgusts me that we have politicians who think similarly as you do, because they're hurting this country a lot and preventing it from progressing, whether conservative, democrat, or republican. You have more than indicated you would let others burn and not care as long as it didn't affect you and benefited you.
 

Philia

Registered User
英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Messages
2,423
Reaction score
2,464
Gender
Male
Country
Joker
What is the latest update about the election guys? I read somewhere, that Trump is taking the Republican party down with him. I'm confused. I thought Clinton was a weak candidate. I guess anyone other than Trump from the other side like Rubio would've been a clear win for the Republicans. When Trump gets full backing from the party, will he be able to beat Clinton? According to the media it seems USA is on the way of electing a female POTUS. Although I've found Clinton to be a media darling from the beginning.

Anyway Sanders still looking to fight in the convention. What can he possibly achieve? VP?

Elizabeth Warren seems to be another potential running mate for Clinton.
 

SharkBait

MH Senpai
伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
14,069
Reaction score
6,930
Gender
Male
Country
United States
The next update would be the national conventions in july and whoever is announced as their vps.

The only one saying trump is taking the party down are people who believe the daily poll of whichever service they like. I dont know if those polls are ecen2that accurate this far out.
 
Top