2016 Presidential Election [Archive] - Page 16

allegro

08-10-2016, 12:56 AM

She sure does. She has said that Australia's gun confiscation & ban is worth looking at. Her own plan goes after a ban on "assault weapons" which is a pointless vague term defined on looks and it will result in people not having those weapons. The reasons she opposes Heller vs DC also indicates that she does not support the individual right to own firearms. Her own website shows (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/) that she is in support of denying individuals access to guns without any due process.
The SCOTUS doesn't support the right to own assault weapons (see Heller*), hence why they refuse to hear any assault weapon ban cases. Clinton said she disagreed with certain aspects of Heller (prevents cities and states from passing regulative laws relating to things like safe storage (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-20/hillary-clinton-believes-pivotal-gun-rights-ruling-was-wrong-adviser-says)), but she never said she specifically did not like it due to its individual gun owner decision. Remember, the main argument in Heller involved a law that required guns to be stored in a locked cabinet and for the gun to have a trigger-locking mechanism.

* "We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'" - SCOTUS, Heller Opinion

And people with ties to suspected terrorists are not guaranteed due process when it comes to guns and homeland security. Nope. Those days are over.

Clinton has said, repeatedly, that she supports the 2nd Amendment. The President and SCOTUS don't create laws that affect the 2nd Amendment; the Legislative branch does.

Clinton, June 20, 2015: Now, I lived in Arkansas and I represented Upstate New York. I know that gun ownership is part of the fabric of a lot of law-abiding communities. But I also know that we can have common sense gun reforms that keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the violently unstable, while respecting responsible gun owners. What I hope with all of my heart is that we work together to make this debate less polarized, less inflamed by ideology, more informed by evidence, so we can sit down across the table, across the aisle from one another, and find ways to keep our communities safe while protecting constitutional rights.

Clinton, Feb. 29: If we can’t figure out how to respect the constitutional rights of responsible gun owners, but keep guns out of people who have felony records, who are fugitives, stalkers, have domestic violence restraining orders against them, are dangerously mentally ill, shame on us.

Clinton, April 20: There is a Second Amendment, there are constitutional rights. We aren’t interested in taking away guns of lawful, responsible gun owners.

DigitalChaos

08-10-2016, 01:56 AM

I can debate all of those points, but even you just demonstrated that those very things are likely to happen and possibly legally allowable.

Assault weapon ban.
Restricting access to "suspects"

This is taking away guns. Saying the AWB isn't her taking away your guns is like saying "we aren't taking away your milk, we are just banning it from stores and banning cows. You'll still have the milk in your fridge!" Youve just taken away milk from the people.

I'm also not convinced Trump wouldn't do the same. But my point is about where "taking your guns" has legitimacy or not. Whether it should happen or is legally permissible is irrelevant.

Harry Seaward

08-10-2016, 03:49 AM

Donald Trump says the media is misrepresenting his words; he was only implying that the "2nd Amendment People" should 'vote' to prevent Clinton from winning the White House.

...however, in the hypothetical situation he was describing, Clinton had already won the Presidency and the only way she could be prevented from appointing an anti-2nd amendment Justice would be if the "2nd Amendment People" were to 'stop' her.

No matter whether you're a Donald Trump fan or not, you must be with me in being absolutely baffled in his unprecedented ability to exclusively say all of the wrong things every single time. It's truly amazing. And after he says the exact wrong thing, he either doubles down or accuses the 'media' of misrepresenting him. He can never admit fault in any situation ever, even during times when both the Left and the Right are telling him "Obviously you're wrong. Just apologize."

I prefer to stick to talking about his actual ideals and beliefs and plans, and not the way he conducts himself like such an unrelenting prick, but are these traits anybody really wants in the President? Constantly making horrible, sarcastic comments about serious things coupled with the inability to admit he was wrong?

Being the person who "tells it like it is" is NOT a positive trait if your version of "like it is" is objectively wrong and you also go about doing it like a supreme asshole, every time.

Frozen Beach

08-10-2016, 04:43 AM

What Trump said was incredibly stupid and wrong. But I will say, Hillary can't call him out for it because she's guilty of similar. Anybody remember this happening in 2008?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC6Sa8t9Ywg

also, another one I found surprising, Joe Biden actually made a joke that he'd shoot Obama if he came for his guns in 08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNjmcU3Ab5c

It doesn't matter if you're joking, it doesn't matter if it's not what you meant. What matters is what you say. This echoes back to what I stated about Bernie Sanders when he said his "When you're white, you don't know...." statement.

Assassination jokes and implications of possible assassination attempts shouldn't be allowed in politics.

No advisor in his or her right mind would tell Trump or any politician to use a line like that.
That's assuming he has an adviser in his or her right mind.

GulDukat

08-10-2016, 05:00 AM

absolute concrete evidence? nope, not at the moment. But there is a legitimate question about what just unfolded. I was mostly pointing out that this was left out from the list though.

She sure does. She has said that Australia's gun confiscation & ban is worth looking at. Her own plan goes after a ban on "assault weapons" which is a pointless vague term defined on looks and it will result in people not having those weapons. The reasons she opposes Heller vs DC also indicates that she does not support the individual right to own firearms. Her own website shows (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/) that she is in support of denying individuals access to guns without any due process.

There are no "legitimate questions," no proof or reason to believe that there was a connection between the death of the DC staffer and the emails--just speculation, based on something Assange said. And we know he hates her and is doing whatever he can to hurt her campaign.

A majority of Americans want to ban assult weapons.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/283558-poll-majority-of-americans-support-ban-on-assault-weapons

There is no reason why any civilian needs a gun that can fire 30 rounds in 15 seconds. Trump said Clinton wants to do away with the second ammendment and "take your guns," implying ALL guns, and that's just not true.

She wants to ban assult weapons, eliminate loop holes, i.e., guns shows where you don't need a background check, have universal background checks. All very sensible policies which I agree with.

allegro

08-10-2016, 09:45 AM

I can debate all of those points, but even you just demonstrated that those very things are likely to happen and possibly legally allowable.

Assault weapon ban.
Restricting access to "suspects"
There are far too many assault weapons out there right now so a Fed ban ain't happening; she is suggesting meaures to make sure they (and other weapons) don't get into the possession of the wrong people (mentally ill, felons, terrorists, potential terrorists, etc.)

RhettButler: No, she doesn't want to ban assault weapons and neither does Obama because that WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE AT THIS POINT IN TIME WITH OVER 12 MILLION OF THOSE WEAPONS ALREADY OWNED BY AMERICANS. The "we can take a look at" the Australian buy-back model comment was politician equivocating. She knows that the U.S CANNOT AFFORD THAT, IT WOULD COST BILLIONS AND PROBABLY LEAD TO A CIVIL WAR.

But, the SCOTUS Heller Opinion (and subsequent refusal to hear munipal ban cases) currently allows local bans which means you can simply take your already-owned gun and MOVE (which you could not do with a Fed ban).

What Clinton and Obama DO want to do is increase background checks and perhaps do waiting periods and other methods that make buying a weapon that fires 30 bullets a tad more difficult than buying a burger at a drive-thru and more akin to getting your driver's license.

The point is: The San Bernadino shooter didn't buy his assault weapon at a store; he bought it from his neighbor who needed extra cash, which is highly illegal in California but the neighbor did it anyway.

Point being: guns don't kill people. PEOPLE do. And we can ban high capacity guns but with 12 million out there, they become a hot commodity and worth more.

Conan The Barbarian

08-10-2016, 10:09 AM

Look I get that it's your right. But man Americans are so obsessed with guns.

allegro

08-10-2016, 10:12 AM

Look I get that it's your right. But man Americans are so obsessed with guns.
It's been that way since the Civil War.

(The Civil War cost between 650,000 and 850,000 lives, pitting the North vs. the South.)

DigitalChaos

08-10-2016, 10:22 AM

RhettButler you've gone from "she doesn't want to take your guns" to "but I agree with the way she wants to take your guns." Exhibit #736382947 why people are done listening to gun controllers say they "don't want to take your guns."

There are far too many assault weapons out there right now so a Fed ban ain't happening;
Bill managed to do it at the federal level. That's what she wants to bring back.

RhettButler: No, she doesn't want to ban assault weapons

Perhaps you should read her own site. Because an AWB is listed....

GulDukat

08-10-2016, 10:41 AM

@RhettButler (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=3921) you've gone from "she doesn't want to take your guns" to "but I agree with the way she wants to take your guns." Exhibit #736382947 why people are done listening to gun controllers say they "don't want to take your ....

Nope. She wants a ban on military style assult weapons, not all guns, just guns that no civilian needs to own.

Clinton on assault weapons ban:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/clinton-calls-for-a-new-assault-weapons-ban-12-years-after-the-last-one-expired/

allegro

08-10-2016, 11:06 AM

Bill managed to do it at the federal level. That's what she wants to bring back.

Congress (the entity that creates laws) did it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act) (House votes here (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1994/h416))and Bill Clinton signed it, and even Ronald Reagan supported it. A LOOOONG time ago, way before there were so many high-capacity weapons out there. The horse already left the barn; hence why her site says NOTHING about re-instituting the Federal ban on "assault weapons." Because it would dangerously create a black market, much like Prohibition did. And it would be useless.

Go look at her site, again (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/); nothing about re-instating the Federal AWB. It says co-sponsored legislation in the past; nothing about a current desire to do it, because Congress has to do that, a President can't do that, and Congress doing it in 2017 or in the future would be useless.

Clinton on assault weapons ban:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/clinton-calls-for-a-new-assault-weapons-ban-12-years-after-the-last-one-expired/
That is a bullshit headline. She said: "We’ve got to keep weapons of war off our streets, as well as blocking suspected terrorists from buying guns." This means she doesn't want convicted gang-banger felons getting AW and she doesn't want terror suspects getting them. But, as usual, WaPo takes one sentence and spins it, "CLINTON WANT TO BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS" which isn't what she said and her own site does not say that, BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE. First, because Presidents don't create laws (Congress does that) and second, because with nearly 13 million out there already owned by U.S. citizens, estimate, it's too late to ban them.

GulDukat

08-10-2016, 11:19 AM

allegro

08-10-2016, 11:21 AM

Clinton has stated many times that she wants to renew the assult weapons ban.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/27/hillary-clinton-is-the-new-standard-bearer-for-gun-control-so-lets-look-at-her-record/?tid=a_inl

On her website she states that "weapons of war have no place on our streets," which I take to mean she favors an assult weapons ban.

What she can get accomplished as POTUS, idk. Not sure congress would do anything, especially if they retain control of both houses.
On our streets which doesn't mean in our homes for protection; it means criminals and that points to her call for increased background checks and the demand for felons to not be able to get those AWs.

You can "take" whatever you want but she has not said she wants to again ban assault weapons, she equivocates so that it can mean different things to different people; people (including you and the media) are interpreting it whatever way you want, but she isn't saying that.

LOOK AT HER SITE (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/) keeping in mind that a President cannot create laws, Congress creates laws and Presidents say this shit to get elected:

As president, Hillary will:

* Expand background checks to more gun sales—including by closing the gun show and internet sales loopholes—and strengthen the background check system by getting rid of the so-called “Charleston Loophole.”

* Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.

* Keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill by supporting laws that stop domestic abusers from buying and owning guns, making it a federal crime for someone to intentionally buy a gun for a person prohibited from owning one, and closing the loopholes that allow people suffering from severe mental illness to purchase and own guns. She will also support work to keep military-style weapons off our streets.

GulDukat

08-10-2016, 11:28 AM

On our streets which doesn't mean in our homes for protection; it means criminals and that points to her call for increased background checks and the demand for felons to not be able to get those AWs.
It is vague, and I take it to mean that she favors an assult weapons ban. The fact that she publicy has stated she favors such a ban (several links are on this page) backs that up. But you are right, it doesn't explicitly state that on her page.

allegro

08-10-2016, 11:30 AM

It is vague, and I take it to mean that she favors an assult weapons ban. The fact that she publicy has stated she favors such a ban (several links are on this page) backs that up. But you are right, it doesn't explicitly state that on her page.

No, and since a President can't actually DO it, it's just campaign rhetoric and ambiguous at best.

GulDukat

08-10-2016, 11:34 AM

No, and since a President can't actually DO it, it's just campaign rhetoric and ambiguous at best.

Unless the Democrats regain control of both houses and of course win the presidency. It's a tall order.

And yes, she has stated that she favors an AWB, many times. Several links on this page provided.

DigitalChaos

08-10-2016, 11:35 AM

Nope. She wants a ban on military style assult weapons, not all guns, just guns that no civilian needs to own.

Clinton on assault weapons ban:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/clinton-calls-for-a-new-assault-weapons-ban-12-years-after-the-last-one-expired/

no amount of you justifying the fact that she wants to take away guns is going to make it line up with your original statement that "she doesnt want to take your guns"

you are just grinding against which guns and how. that's literally you explaining that she wants to take guns.

Khrz

08-10-2016, 11:37 AM

holy shit you're incredible sometimes...

allegro

08-10-2016, 11:41 AM

Unless the Democrats regain control of both houses and of course win the presidency. It's a tall order.
And, even then, a ban would mean the confiscation of (and reimbursement for) over 12 million AW guns already in possession of U.S. Citizens. And this country simply is not prepared to handle something like that on that kind of scale. It's like Prohibition ... on CRACK. It would require Gestapo-like door-busting searches and seizures. This just IS.NOT.HAPPPENING. And since this won't happen, those 12 million + AWs will become a hot commodity and will be sold on the black market for a very high price, and people can and will very easily make their own illegal AWs and will sell them on the black market, again like during Prohibition, and it will give street gangs a whole new sale commodity, bigger than drugs. And if people think this will end shootings? I have a rainbow unicorn in my back yard for you. So the smarter thing is to highly regulate said AWs to try to prevent them from getting into the wrong hands, much like what we do with other dangerous things like prescription drugs and vehicles and alcohol.

GulDukat

08-10-2016, 11:44 AM

no amount of you justifying the fact that she wants to take away guns is going to make it line up with your original statement that "she doesnt want to take your guns"

you are just grinding against which guns and how. that's literally you explaining that she wants to take guns.

Donald Trump has stated that Clinton wants to abolish the second ammendment and "take your guns away," implying all guns. This is not true. She has said that she favors an assult weapons ban, i.e., guns that can fire 30 rounds in 15 seconds.

By your logic, why not let civilians own uzis, rocket launchers, tanks, etc. Shouldn't that also be protected by the second ammendment?

Jinsai

08-10-2016, 11:44 AM

Meanwhile, this is a pretty fucking stupid comment by Hillary. Maybe she should drone somebody about it.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160810/9a7bd568347ffaa7e54a02b576eaf5bf.jpg

Yeah, that's idiotic and eye-roll-worthy... if she really wants to capitalize on the insane comments Trump made, just let the public gasp (appropriately) about it. There's no need to chime in with some peace love hippy bullshit tweet that sounds like it was written by an idealistic nine-year-old.

Regarding the "certain kinds of guns" recall, that's actually pretty much just happened in California. Not sure how effective it was.

DigitalChaos

08-10-2016, 11:49 AM

No, and since a President can't actually DO it, it's just campaign rhetoric and ambiguous at best.

You know, except for nominating someone to that vacant Supreme Court position that will overturn Heller v DC. Isn't that exactly the scenario Trump was talking about?

There are also a variety of fees, taxes, and liabilities that she has control or influence over that can dramatically reduce access to guns. Even BERNIE SANDERS, a guy who supports banning semi-auto guns, says her proposals would virtually eliminate guns in the US.

And pretending that HRC doesn't support a new AWB is just silly. Here are her own words right after the Orlando shooting: “We did have an assault weapons ban for 10 years, and I think it should be reinstated”

GulDukat

08-10-2016, 11:51 AM

And, even then, a ban would mean the confiscation of (and reimbursement for) over 12 million AW guns already in possession of U.S. Citizens. And this country simply is not prepared to handle something like that on that kind of scale. It's like Prohibition ... on CRACK. It would require Gestapo-like door-busting searches and seizures. This just IS.NOT.HAPPPENING. And since this won't happen, those 12 million + AWs will become a hot commodity and will be sold on the black market for a very high price, and people can and will very easily make their own illegal AWs and will sell them on the black market, again like during Prohibition, and it will give street gangs a whole new sale commodity, bigger than drugs. And if people think this will end shootings? I have a rainbow unicorn in my back yard for you. So the smarter thing is to highly regulate said AWs to try to prevent them from getting into the wrong hands, much like what we do with other dangerous things like prescription drugs and vehicles and alcohol.

Not all of these guns can be confiscated, but a ban on future sales would be a start. It would be something. The fact that there could potentially be a black market for these kinds of weapons in the future is no reason to just let sales continue. And unlike bathtub gin during prohibition, it's not like these weapons can be easily manufacturered and sold.

allegro

08-10-2016, 11:51 AM

By your logic, why not let civilians own uzis, rocket launchers, tanks, etc. Shouldn't that also be protected by the second ammendment?
No, because the Supreme Court of the United States says that "well regulated' (in the 2nd Amendment) means no "dangerous weapons" which is also interpreted to mean "we ain't defending AWs" per the Heller opinion.

But the CAVEAT in the Heller opinion is that the SCOTUS opinion said that whatever home weapon is "popular" at the time is defensible by strict scrutiny of law; in other words, in the old days, everybody used to have a shotgun at home; but now a lot more people have a handgun at home for home protection or whatever, so the Heller opinion used prior case law that said it was okay to own a shotgun, long gun or rifle because that was what was popularly used at the time, and increased it to include handgun, and someday -- like it or not -- it will include "assault weapon" (which has not yet been clearly defined by law) because it's commonly used. So, AWs will eventually become commonplace by usage and ownership and there will be enough case law to determine that it will be legal for a homeowner to own one for home protection; that's the direction we are moving; possession is 9/10th of the law; common use and practice. Black powder guns used to be the commonplace gun, but the laws and usage evolve. This is based on a lot of prior case law, including the prior "Miller" decision.

SEE THE HELLER OPINION (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html).

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

[...]

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

The Court currently finds AWs to be "dangerous and unusual" but once they become "usual" (and of course all guns are "dangerous") then they pass strict scrutiny.

DigitalChaos

08-10-2016, 11:52 AM

And, even then, a ban would mean the confiscation of
no it wouldn't, hence my milk comment above about letting people keep what is in the fridge, but nothing more, and pretending that it isn't taking away milk from the people.
Bill's AWB didn't include confiscation.

GulDukat

08-10-2016, 12:02 PM

You know, except for nominating someone to that vacant Supreme Court position that will overturn Heller v DC. Isn't that exactly the scenario Trump was talking about?

There are also a variety of fees, taxes, and liabilities that she has control or influence over that can dramatically reduce access to guns. Even BERNIE SANDERS, a guy who supports banning semi-auto guns, says her proposals would virtually eliminate guns in the US.

And pretending that HRC doesn't support a new AWB is just silly. Here are her own words right after the Orlando shooting: “We did have an assault weapons ban for 10 years, and I think it should be reinstated”
I thought Obama was going to take all the guns away.... Oh wait.

allegro

08-10-2016, 12:05 PM

no it wouldn't, hence my milk comment above about letting people keep what is in the fridge, but nothing more, and pretending that it isn't taking away milk from the people.
Bill's AWB didn't include confiscation.

The proposed Fed bans that I have seen talk of included voluntary turn-ins, and of course if you are caught with one you face arrest (not mere confiscation). The whole thing is stupid, makes zero sense.

But, yeah, the other two HR bills that I have seen have grandfather clauses which means that the AW are grandfathered and can not only continue to be owned by the gun owner but CAN ACTUALLY BE LEGALLY TRANSFERRED. Wtf. But the masses will be placated.

DigitalChaos

08-10-2016, 12:10 PM

The proposed Fed bans that I have seen talk of included voluntary turn-ins, and of course if you are caught with one you face arrest (not mere confiscation). The whole thing is stupid.
Interesting, i'd love to see some of those. I don't know that HRC has pointed to anything specific other than the old AWB, but I definitely don't keep a running list of that :) An effective confiscation like that would raise a full on insurrection here.

I agree on the stupidity of it, both in the viability (your point) and the general approch. Even the definitions around AWB are insane. But I'm avoiding touching on any of that cause it's not the Gun Thread. I'm just focusing entirely on what HRC *wants* to do and *can* do, as that is the point of contention in the election.

I thought Obama was going to take all the guns away.... Oh wait.
Now you're just forfeiting. I'll take it.
I was never someone who said anything along those lines.

GulDukat

08-10-2016, 12:14 PM

The right has been going on for years about Feds in black helicopters coming down, taking guns. Now they're going on about Clinton doing the same.

allegro

08-10-2016, 12:15 PM

The right has been going on for years about Feds in black helicopters coming down, taking guns. Now they're going on about Clinton doing the same.

Because the Right wants people to be scared. And enough people are stupid enough to believe it. They're gonna come take their slaves, too.

DigitalChaos

08-10-2016, 12:24 PM

Regarding the "certain kinds of guns" recall, that's actually pretty much just happened in California. Not sure how effective it was.
Looping this back into the HRC gun taking topic....

Yup. CA based an assault weapon ban, background checks on ammo, forced registration on any DIY weapons and materials that could become a DIY weapon (this is also retroactive). None of this has gone active yet, so effectivity on certain topics can't be derived. There was absolutely a spike in DIY materials purchasing... which says some interesting things.

But again, effectivity is best discussed in gun thread. The point I wanted to make is that THIS kind of thing is possible under Heller (maybe, at least. CA has a habit of passing unconstitutional legislation that gets tied up in the courts while denying citizens the entire time). Having Heller overturned would open things up even more as the individual right to arms goes away and lets states do much more. So it's just one more way to further reduce access to weapons. Doesn't matter if you are for or against it in context of this discussion, of course.

DigitalChaos

08-10-2016, 12:27 PM

The right has been going on for years about Feds in black helicopters coming down, taking guns. Now they're going on about Clinton doing the same.
ah yes, now were are into "you are just paranoid like everyone has been before" even though you are agreeing with what HRC wants to do. I've never seen someone strawman their own views. Pretty neat.

GulDukat

08-10-2016, 12:46 PM

ah yes, now were are into "you are just paranoid like everyone has been before" even though you are agreeing with what HRC wants to do. I've never seen someone strawman their own views. Pretty neat.
I'm not agreeing about anything. You keep insisting that assult weapons ban=take all guns away, when that's nonsense.

Jinsai

08-10-2016, 12:50 PM

I'm not agreeing about anything. You keep insisting that assult weapons ban=take all guns away, when that's nonsense.

I don't agree with @DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598) about guns in general, but I think he's arguing more about precedent. Maybe I'm missing it, but the idea that you can retroactively revoke the legality of ownership is the issue for a lot of gun people. I don't have a strong personal opinion about this, but I actually would agree that the move in California seems to be pushing for this with no form of direct compensation, which is where I would actually say agree it's screwed up... though predictable really. If you pass laws which are framed to admonish the possession of something, it's easy to disregard the people getting "screwed," and that is an interesting thing to see roll out

GulDukat

08-10-2016, 01:12 PM

DigitalChaos

08-10-2016, 01:13 PM

I don't agree with @DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598) about guns in general, but I think he's arguing more about precedent. Maybe I'm missing it, but the idea that you can retroactively revoke the legality of ownership is the issue for a lot of gun people. I don't have a strong personal opinion about this, but I actually would agree that the move in California seems to be pushing for this with no form of direct compensation, which is where I would actually say that it's screwed up.

This is definitely part of it. What happened in CA with the AWB is that it: revokes the ability to buy certain guns in the future and, if you already have those guns, you have to add another layer of registration that prevents you from EVER transferring those weapons to anyone (even family). So the guns "die with the owner." That's if the owner decides to even keep the guns. It's really just a way to make a full ban and seizure easier for some to digest. It also effectively bans things like the AR-15, which is one of the most popular weapons (thus failing the strict scruitiny that @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) mentioned in defining a "common weapon").

The other thing is that the definition of an assault weapon is extremely loose and it expands as the government desires. Historically, it has always been based on some random aesthetic of the gun ... which is pretty irrelevant to effectivity of safety legislation, but that's not the point. The point is the nebulous and growing nature of the definition that allows banning something that is constitutionally protected. The AW definition can go off into a tangent from the original topic, but this does a great job of touching on it: In Support Of A Total Ban on Civilians Owning Firearms (https://popehat.com/2016/06/16/in-support-of-a-total-ban-on-civilians-owning-firearms/)

But an absolute minimum, and at the core of the original comment (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3669-2016-Presidential-Election?p=312468#post312468), this IS depriving the citizens of a very wide range of guns. The fact that it isn't 100% of guns (currently) doesn't change the fact that the they do indeed want to "take your guns." It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with those guns being taken away, the effectivity, etc. The statement that HRC wants to take away guns from people is still factual. There are many people who's primary or only guns would be taken away by what HRC *wants* to do.

allegro

08-10-2016, 01:14 PM

The point I wanted to make is that THIS kind of thing is possible under Heller (maybe, at least. CA has a habit of passing unconstitutional legislation that gets tied up in the courts while denying citizens the entire time). Having Heller overturned would open things up even more as the individual right to arms goes away and lets states do much more. So it's just one more way to further reduce access to weapons. Doesn't matter if you are for or against it in context of this discussion, of course.
The individual gun ownership definition is ballyhoo'd by the NRA but not much by anyone else, as it was pretty much already assumed under the 2nd amendment that individuals ARE the "militia" and this isn't likely to be reversed by any case law in the future. The "problem" the liberals have with Heller is the Court's denying municipalities from passing restrictions on safe storage (a locked gun safe), which the Heller opinion said deems the weapon useless if the individual has to get to it for home security. So, really, the issue isn't about an "individual" in Heller but the intended USE of the gun, shifting from "militia" to "home security" but in any case the individual IS the militia, see MILLER (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174). And, again, the 2nd Amendment (and Heller and Miller) says "well regulated," although so-called AWs are now so popular, they just passed the strict scrutiny test in a Federal court earlier this year and the 2nd Amendment DELIBERATELY intends that weapons held by the individual militia be the standard style held by a normal "militia." So as much as I don't love AR-15s and think they're dick extenders, they are here to stay.

allegro

08-10-2016, 01:18 PM

The statement that HRC wants to take away guns from people is still factual. There are many people who's primary or only guns would be taken away by what HRC *wants* to do.
And you just said that a AW ban would not in fact confiscate guns but would grandfather the possession of the (over 21 million) already-owned guns, so no gun would be "taken." (And the 2 bills that I read allow the AW's ownership to be transferred.) And people would still be able to legally purchase handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. And HRC, in the Executive position, cannot effect law. Yet the image of HRC swooping down and "taking" peoples guns is still perpetuating the fear mongering.

sick among the pure

08-10-2016, 01:31 PM

A ban on the future sales of assult weapons would be a start.

Well I was going to ask you to define assault weapon, but then...

No civilian should be able to own a gun that can fire 30 rounds in 10 seconds, or whatever.

...you kinda told me right away that you don't even know what you're talking about.

GulDukat

08-10-2016, 01:47 PM

Sticks and stones.

I think my description meets the criteria.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

implanted_microchip

08-10-2016, 01:50 PM

So, Hillary's now trying to pander a bit to Mormons:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659843/Exclusive-Hillary-Clinton-What-I-have-in-common-with-Utah-leaders-2-religious-freedom-and-the.html?pg=all

I can't believe I might get to see Utah not go to a Republican this year. I'm pretty dead-certain all it'll take is a Romney endorsement of Johnson to keep Trump from getting the state, and if Hillary can leach some voters off of him, it'll only make it harder for Trump to win. Her whole strategy right now of making sure Trump can only spend his time playing defense in firewall states is pretty incredible.

GulDukat

08-10-2016, 01:53 PM

implanted_microchip

08-10-2016, 02:32 PM

Georgia is also up for grabs.

I know and I can hardly believe it. The thought that Georgia could turn blue is insane and amazing to me. I didn't mention it because I feel like that's a different case compared to using Libertarians to take delegates away from Trump, though. His campaign can't even do much in swing states right now because they're so busy defending things that are supposed to be guaranteed wins. It's great seeing this election go the direction I really hoped it would but was afraid it wouldn't (you never know with the people in this country).

theruiner

08-10-2016, 03:49 PM

Georgia is also up for grabs.So is Arizona, which is SHOCKING. I am extra excited to vote this year for that reason.

Frozen Beach

08-10-2016, 04:21 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-spotted-scaling-side-trump-tower-york/story?id=41278389 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-spotted-scaling-side-trump-tower-york/story?id=41278389)
Well, this is happening...

Sarah K

08-10-2016, 04:27 PM

Yeah. I am watching this shit and my anxiety is going wild!

GulDukat

08-10-2016, 04:50 PM

He (Trump) has made everyone crazy. Now you have people climbing buildings.

Frozen Beach

08-10-2016, 04:55 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP493LmSJrE
Supposedly this is a video uploaded by the guy

GulDukat

08-10-2016, 05:05 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP493LmSJrE
Supposedly this is a video uploaded by the guy
I am sure Mr. Trump appreciates the support.

Dryalex12

08-10-2016, 05:05 PM

allegro

08-10-2016, 05:30 PM

Okay this is probably the only time ill post something here.
Now let me be clear (no im not Obama) That i have no idea how politics works, and I may never know....but that being said....There something that worries me about trump that i dont think anyone has said
If by some dark miracle he does become president and i hope in whatever god you believe names name he dosn't......he's gonna fuck up the relationship with every country we are on good terms with and worsen the ones that already hate us
Now correct me if im wrong, since again, I dont really know what the fuck im talking about, but Didnt Obama go to cuba and kinda...made amends or something? I hear something like that.
So uh yeah, that all I have to say.

The Secretary of State is generally the position that does most of the handshaking and political relations. John Kerry is currently doing a pretty good job. We have not totally reconciled our relationship with Cuba. We say they owe us a buttload of money for oil refineries and sugar businesses that we owned, there, that they nationalized after the revolution. They are still pissed at us for cutting off all business with them and barring any of our allies from dealing with them since the late-50s, contributing to mass poverty. The embargo has not been lifted and relations are not fully normalized. We still can't go there for tourism. Lifting the Cuban embargo requires an act of Congress; since Republicans hate communism, and Republicans currently control Congress, this ain't happening.

Anyway, yes, the fear that Trump will FUBAR foreign relations (he hates NATO) is a big reason why that letter signed by 50 Republican security experts was released.

Dryalex12

08-10-2016, 06:28 PM

The Secretary of State is generally the position that does most of the handshaking and political relations. John Kerry is currently doing a pretty good job. We have not totally reconciled our relationship with Cuba. We say they owe us a buttload of money for oil refineries and sugar businesses that we owned, there, that they nationalized after the revolution. They are still pissed at us for cutting off all business with them and barring any of our allies from dealing with them since the late-50s, contributing to mass poverty. The embargo has not been lifted and relations are not fully normalized. We still can't go there for tourism. Lifting the Cuban embargo requires an act of Congress; since Republicans hate communism, and Republicans currently control Congress, this ain't happening.

Anyway, yes, the fear that Trump will FUBAR foreign relations (he hates NATO) is a big reason why that letter signed by 50 Republican security experts was released.

Fair enough...I think? i dunno im just gonna go back to lurking

DF118

08-10-2016, 08:55 PM

Obama founded ISIS. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1318733/Trump-Pres-Obama-founded-ISIS-Middle-East-Policy.html[/url)

Thanks, Obama.

allegro

08-10-2016, 09:12 PM

Fair enough...I think? i dunno im just gonna go back to lurking
Noooooooo don't do that :-)

DigitalChaos

08-11-2016, 11:59 AM

Anyone remember 2008 when Clinton said she was staying in the race just in case Obama got assassinated?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1MOOIjs_HE

Frozen Beach

08-11-2016, 12:55 PM

I mentioned that yesterday.

DigitalChaos

08-12-2016, 12:44 AM

I mentioned that yesterday.

Well now we have two instances of Hillary supporters refusing to acknowledge it :p

allegro

08-12-2016, 12:49 AM

Well now we have two instances of Hillary supporters refusing to acknowledge it :p

I don't think anyone is refusing anything, I didn't remember it but I think it was just a dumb statement on her part, like saying "you never know what can happen so I am staying in this race until the very end," not saying "SOMEBODY GO ASSASSINATE OBAMA!!!!" Trump's comment meant after the election was already over.

I have a lot less forgiveness for Keith Olbermann, jesus christ ... AND THE ACADEMY AWARD GOES TO ...

DigitalChaos

08-12-2016, 01:00 AM

She actually repeatedly referenced the assassination potential as a reason to not drop out. The most blatant instance is what finally triggered Olberman to go on that rant.

Hillary also had an anti-Obama video made with a picture of Osama bin Laden next to him. It pissed many off. edit: not next to Obama, but Obama compared HRC to GWB over the OBL picture in the commercial.

Hillary and Bill also had several instances of denigrating Obama due to his race. Insinuating he wouldn't be winning if he were white, that he was like Jesse Jackson, etc.

Her whole campaign was pretty gross and it pissed off many progressives. Looking at how she treated Bernie now makes so much of her 2008 campaign look insanely hypocritical. The point isn't that she did something exactly like Trump. The point is that there is a lot of overlap and that the moral outrage that HRC supporters have over Trump seems a bit.... fake... or at least extremely denialist.

and yeah, Olberman was always like that. It always looked pretty silly. He did run through a decent list of the HRC bullshit that was happening at the time though.

Frozen Beach

08-12-2016, 03:34 AM

The difference between Trump's comment and Hillary's comment is that Hillary's comment was serious. Trump's comment was more of a fucked up joke that doesn't belong in politics, whereas Hillary's comment is a thought that doesn't belong in any reasonable person's brain.

I think Joe Biden's comment might be the most fucked up though.

allegro

08-12-2016, 03:58 AM

I don't know that ANY of them were serious. But all three of them have foot-in-mouth problems. Especially Trump. Joe has made some really goofy blunders that were hilarious. Clinton has said shit and you wonder if she is on medication. But Trump is saying some shit that is so off-the-wall, it's like he is deliberately torching his campaign. Getting mad about a baby? Dude, politicians kiss babies LOL.

Olbermann, totally overdramatic goofball. I can't stomach more than 5 seconds of that guy.

I don't remember any '08 Clinton campaign video with a pic of Obama by bin Laden. I call Snopes on that one. And the Clintons are friends with Jesse Jackson. Jackson was the one who was caught saying nasty stuff about Obama on a hot mic (Jackson said Obama talks down to black people).

implanted_microchip

08-12-2016, 09:41 AM

Heard somebody call Trump "Putin's bitch" and saw what I think were YouTube stars open for Trump. Also got to see Donald Trump tell me how he "had so many ads" and how he ignores his campaign managers because he feels like it. More shit-talking about Hillary than even our residential Libertarian can manage to pump out and random statistics and numbers that I won't even bother to try and remember nor fact-check because, well, I get the impression Donald hasn't either. He also used a lot of posterboards like it was a middle school presentation which was pretty awesome in a Carrot Top kinda way.

Oh, favorite quote: "I've always loved debt." He said this several times.

10/10 affair, would attend again.

Basically his events are exactly what you expect them to be. Well-worth your time if you want to both feel on the verge of getting your ass kicked if anybody learns a shred about your personal identity and on the verge of laughing so hard that you'll die due to oxygen deprivation.

DigitalChaos

08-12-2016, 12:41 PM

I don't remember any '08 Clinton campaign video with a pic of Obama by bin Laden. I call Snopes on that one.
You are right. It was the "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" ad that had bin Laden in it. It prompted Obama to compare Hillary to GWB.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/27/flashback-to-2008-obama-campaign-outrageously-outraged-over-hillarys-use-of-osama-bin-laden/

And the Clintons are friends with Jesse Jackson. Jackson was the one who was caught saying nasty stuff about Obama on a hot mic (Jackson said Obama talks down to black people).
uh, you must have forgotten how much the progressive media was knocking the Clintons about all the racial undertones being thrown out by them in the 2008 run.
http://theweek.com/articles/567774/hillary-clinton-needs-address-racist-undertones-2008-campaign

Anyway, it really doesn't matter. It still makes progressives look silly by being perpetually outraged by Trump while backing Hillary.

allegro

08-12-2016, 12:58 PM

uh, you must have forgotten how much the progressive media was knocking the Clintons about all the racial undertones being thrown out by them in the 2008 run.

You said:

"Insinuating he wouldn't be winning if he were white, that he was like Jesse Jackson, etc. "

"like Jesse Jackson?" Jesse Jackson pretty much said Obama wasn't really black (but he also called Obama the N word on a hot mic). The Clintons were and are friends with Jackson. Jackson endorsed Clinton in '16 (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283139-jesse-jackson-to-endorse-clinton). Again, i'm calling Snopes on Hillary Clinton saying that Obama was "like Jesse Jackson" with any negative racist connotation.

This is exactly what was said by Bill Clinton in 2008:

Before Mr. Obama’s win on Saturday night, Mr. Clinton was at a polling place in Columbia, S.C., and was asked by a reporter, “What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?” referring to Mr. Clinton’s full-time campaigning for his wife.

Mr. Clinton laughed and replied, “That’s bait too.” (He had just responded to a question about Senator John Kerry by saying he would not take the bait.) He then added: “Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice, in ‘84 and ’88, and he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama is running a good campaign.”

Look, Bill Clinton comparing Barack Obama's 2008 campaign to Jesse Jackson's 1984 and 1988 Presidential campaign isn't "racist," it's just comparing the campaigns of two African American men running for President (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/jackson-not-upset-by-clinton-remarks/?_r=0) (both a relative rarity), one of whom (the latter) is a friend of the Clintons, and his comment was actually very positive.

Mr. Jackson said that on Saturday, Mr. Clinton had simply been recognizing Mr. Jackson’s success and said Mr. Obama recognized it too.

“He said that he felt his success was built on my 84 and 88 campaigns,” Mr. Jackson said of Mr. Obama. He said there had been a “growth and maturing of the electorate” since he ran, and he saw Mr. Obama’s win as “part of the historic evolution of the New South.”

And people being upset at Louis Farrakhan's support of Barack Obama? Even OBAMA distanced himself from that endorsement, since Farrakhan is NUTS and an anti-Semite.

october_midnight

08-12-2016, 01:58 PM

This posted yet? Shit is comedy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSE-XoVKaXg

Swykk

08-12-2016, 02:33 PM

Maybe this belongs better in the Piss You Off thread, but are all Green Party Jill Stein supporters condescending? Is that a prerequisite? Seems to be. My Facebook is a nightmare of left folks fighting over who's going to ruin the place more and how I'm an uninformed pussy for not backing Stein.

I backed Bernie because I believe him. Because he's an honest man in a dishonest profession. He's backing Hillary because it's the only move left. And it IS the only move left. I don't understand how it's not obvious to everyone that Stein is only trying to capitalize and manipulate without any realistic policies.

I think @Jinsai (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=272) said it but I agree, if these unrealistic Stein supporters give the election to Trumppence, I will not be able to forgive them. The country will be set back 60 years (policies, SCOTUS seats, economy, etc).

implanted_microchip

08-12-2016, 05:01 PM

Killer Mike (because all our politics should come from musicians) called voting for Trump or Hillary "the exact same thing" and you should've seen the shitspree of Facebook comments on it earlier. As we all know there is no major difference between someone who supports raising the minimum wage to a living one for all workers in the country and someone who is opposed to the minimum wage even existing at a federal level.

I really believe those people are either operating out of a need to "be different" and have an identity, because some people just fucking need to believe they're somehow "more enlightened" than everybody else and that if only everyone could think like them, things would be perfect -- an easy way to never have to deal with taking accountability or feeling disappointment because you put yourself in a camp that is purely theoretical; Jill Stein will never get elected so supporting her means you never have to feel let down and can forever say "If only ..." while having no real way of having that refuted because it's total thought-experiment territory, same thing for every other alternative really -- or they just are privileged in a way that things like minimum wage do not affect them, or gender inequality does not affect them, and they have the freedom to only go for their total dream candidate.

Either way it's extremely inconsiderate of pretty much anybody not named them and head-in-the-sand fingers-in-ears assholery at best. There are some people who just love to feel they're somehow above the fray and can sit and take cheap shots without ever having any levied at them, because they've accomplished absolutely nothing, giving them no record to dissect.

Harry Seaward

08-12-2016, 06:29 PM

the moral outrage that HRC supporters have over Trump seems a bit.... fake... or at least extremely denialist.

Every time I express my thoughts on Trump (which are quite unkind) on Facebook or elsewhere, I'm accused of being a Clinton fanboy or forced to explain why I support Clinton after she did x y z thing. Personally I think that Clinton doing all the things you listed is despicable. I have no reason or inclination to defend her. I've thought she was an awful person since I was supporting Sanders months ago and I still do.

But all of that is irrelevant to me because I would still vote for almost everybody as long as they're running against Donald Trump. I'm not a Clinton supporter and I have few kind things to say about her. With that being said, I will be first in line on Election Day at my voting center to give my vote to Hillary Clinton for President. Voting third-party or not voting both equate to a vote for Donald Trump and I can't allow that to happen.

DigitalChaos

08-12-2016, 06:46 PM

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) - I'm not arguing FOR the perspective. I'm simply saying that it existed and progressives gave both Clintons a lot of shit for the racial undertones.

are all Green Party Jill Stein supporters condescending? Is that a prerequisite? Seems to be.
Here is the thing about 3rd parties. They have a much higher concentration of people who are ideological purists (vs pragmatists). So you get people who draw this hard line and fight to get everyone on their side. You also have basically all of them stuck in this minority position of being continually ridiculed in every way possible. You also have a bit of an echo chamber that just keeps reinforcing itself. It all adds up to a very unattractive atmosphere for anyone not already buying into the view. I see it constantly in the libertarian & anarchist spheres. Go look at the last Libertarian debates where Gary Johnson was getting booed for believing drivers licenses were ok.

Part of voting 3rd party involves looking past the voters and looking at the candidates. The candidates are the ones that matter anyway. Too many people base their politics about how they feel about associating with other voters. fuck.that.

DigitalChaos

08-12-2016, 06:55 PM

Killer Mike (because all our politics should come from musicians) called voting for Trump or Hillary "the exact same thing" and you should've seen the shitspree of Facebook comments on it earlier. As we all know there is no major difference between someone who supports raising the minimum wage to a living one for all workers in the country and someone who is opposed to the minimum wage even existing at a federal level.

I really believe those people are either operating out of a need to "be different" and have an identity
You've managed to be into politics for how long and you STILL can't understand where huge numbers of voters are coming from. You have yourself so wrapped up into your own views that you can't see other perspectives, and that makes your rant even more hilarious.

It's not hard to understand why Trump and Hillary are "the exact same thing" to many people because it comes down to relativity. Some of us don't align anywhere close to what Trump or Hillary are offering.

Let's pretend voting on skin color was viable. Just pretend for a second... The kind of rant you just went on is like saying "Fuck all these people who want a black president and say that Trump and Hillary are the same white choices. Hillary's 5th uncle lived 400 miles outside of Africa for half his life. That's WAY closer than any of Trump's ancestry!" It's just the most clueless commentary possible.

Jinsai

08-13-2016, 01:13 AM

allegro

08-13-2016, 10:58 AM

goddamn, I should post some arguments I've had with people on Jill Stein's Facebook page... These fucking people. It's like they run around in vintage psychedelic 60s hippie clothes and toss flowers around while they prance and lecture everyone about how they're cowards for giving in to the two party system lie.

And then you say "ok, let's stop fucking around and place a bet. I will give you thousand-to-one odds, and bet every last cent I have in my bank account that Jill Stein will not become the next president of the United States. Seriously, you could just bet ten bucks. I'll take that fucking bet. Bet a dollar and I'll bet a thousand. I'll take that bet."

Suddenly, it's crickets. You cowardly, condescending, delusional, self-righteous, ignorant, crybaby, sore-loser fuckheads. Suddenly, all the "Jill Stein has a VERY GOOD chance of actually winning" bullshit stops, and the kids run home before their parents ground them. But seriously, fuck them, and fuck you Jill. I used to support the green party, but you have really pissed me off here.
Thing is, I'd be more willing to vote for somebody as an Independent (like Sanders has done in Vermont for YEARS), than vote for anybody in the Green Party. That Green Party is just totally full of shit. It's ANOTHER PARTY. And a stupid one. If what you want is real "change" than get off the fucking party boat. Even Bernie couldn't run for President unless he barnacled himself to a party, but I don't know that it's necessary because he showed that individual votes can bring you a LOT of cash, and Trump showed that marketing via Twitter and other social media can get you a LOT of free advertising and attention and Bernie got a lot of free attention and gathering through reddit. So as long as Independents can get themselves on BALLOTS, then fuck parties.

DigitalChaos

08-13-2016, 12:35 PM

Suddenly, all the "Jill Stein has a VERY GOOD chance of actually winning" bullshit stops.
Wait, for real? Is this seriously the case they are focusing on? I hope to hell these people have only been aware of 3rd parties for a few months. A lot of 3rd party voters have much move viable visions beyond "we will win the presidency right now!" It ranges from basic ideological reasons, rejection of the 2-party platform, getting another party on the debate stage, and (on the pragmatic end) the slow game where you build steady growth through funding, platform recognition, etc.

Edit: Apparently Gary Johnson has a page dedicated to this kind of thing: 15 Reasons Why A Vote For Gov. Gary Johnson Matters (https://www.johnsonweld.com/15_reasons_why_a_vote_for_gov_gary_johnson_matters ) It's not the most complete list of reasons, but it's better than what you describe from Greens.

and fuck you Jill. I used to support the green party, but you have really pissed me off here.
I'm out of the loop. What did Jill and the Green Party do?

So as long as Independents can get themselves on BALLOTS, then fuck parties.
I wish we could go for 8 years without even using party labels or associations just to see what happens. That includes not having the media force labels on candidates or anything. People wouldn't know wtf to do with themselves.
It's quite hard to get on the ballot though. You usually need a LOT of signatures. The Libertarians are on the ballot in almost every state. I think we have 1 or 2 states in question because not enough signatures were available or something? That requirement makes sense though. I don't know of a better way to prevent the ballots from having 4,000 candidates.

GulDukat

08-13-2016, 12:43 PM

After the election it will be fun to go on youtube and watch vintage clips of Trump surrogates like Katrina Pierson go on about how Trump is going to win in a landslide.

Jinsai

08-13-2016, 02:31 PM

I'm out of the loop. What did Jill and the Green Party do?

Jill Stein is basically pretending she's Bernie Sanders pt 2, and trying to rally up his supporters, and even encouraging the sort of delusional bullshit thinking that convinces these morons that she actually has a legitimate chance at winning this election. She's been posting articles which seem to infer that anyone on her page saying that this isn't the time for idealistic protest voting is a paid plant from the Clinton campaign. Seriously... and as a result, I've had a ton of her supporters accuse me of being a paid Clinton troll. Seriously, give it a shot, it's kind of amusing and ultimately depressing. She isn't trying to appeal to sensible progressives, she is intentionally targeting idiots and using tactics which would appeal to conspiracy theorists. Her "revolution" is desperate.

She even posted an add for her campaign where she is speaking to a crowd through a bullhorn that has a "BERNIE: not for sale!" sticker on it... she posted this on July 28th, well after Sanders had repeatedly said that he supports Clinton. Her cloying pandering bullshit is pathetic, and her fervent supporters are fringe lunatics, millennial idealists, and insufferable people who recently graduated to the Che-t-shirt-wearing level of "intrepid revolutionary."

allegro

08-13-2016, 03:05 PM

Stein finished 4th in 2012 and the Greens didn't get on the ballot in several states (http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2012/11/07/jill-stein-election-results/). Because they have the worst marketing and campaign skills on the planet, and their platform sucks.

GulDukat

08-13-2016, 03:16 PM

Inside Trump's tanking campaign.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign-gop.html?_r=1

littlemonkey613

08-13-2016, 04:49 PM

It's not hard to understand why Trump and Hillary are "the exact same thing" to many people because it comes down to relativity. Some of us don't align anywhere close to what Trump or Hillary are offering.

I don't think its hard to understand so much as inexcusably silly exactly because its relative. It is a complete false equivalency. If Trump were facing a majority of establishment Republicans none of which I align with on any issue I would be able to see the difference between Donald Trump and these people and I wouldn't have a hard time saying they are a better option. It is glaring enough that it doesn't require alignment. The dude is not stable, what he is "offering" is literally not defined, and so far it seems that no one has control over him. His personality, his worldview (literally just the way his mind approaches the world in relation to himself, not even political shit) is incompatible with the presidency. And most importantly he doesnt know things, because he doesnt educate himself bc that would require admitting you have something to learn.

Not saying that people who vote third party are being silly (although I think if they are swing states a healthy dose of fear might be warranted), but there is just no excuse for pretending one is clearly not a better choice than the other. There are people you disagree with and then there are people who are truly frightening in their lack of qualifications or suitability for this job based on their person. And honestly I can't think of an equivalent of a serious presidential candidate in modern history that can compare. He's special, and that requires special condemnation from everyone exactly because of relativity. When people say they are the same this truth is lost. You can critique and disagree with everything that she says without denying how bad Trump actually is.

Mantra

08-13-2016, 05:47 PM

I see a lot of people shaming progressive third party voters because of how terrifying Trump is, but I would like to know something: exactly when IS it an acceptable time to vote third party? Is there EVER a time when you'd be okay with third party voters? Because I don't buy this idea that there's something "special" about this particular election. I think that, regardless of who the Republican candidate is, party line Democrats will NEVER accept third party voters.

I mean, let's face it, ALL Republicans suck. There's never going to be a Republican candidate that I won't be horrified by. Most of them won't be as insanely over-the-top as Trump (hopefully), but still...Romney? McCain? Bush? Cruz? Ryan? Walker? Every single one of these people are a fucking nightmare. So the situation always gets framed like some kind of melodramatic hostage negotiation: "you better vote for the Democratic nominee or else THIS COUNTRY GOES REPUBLICAN!!!!!"

So are we just trapped in the two party system forever? Is this honesty the best we can ever hope for?

Centrist Dems acted all annoyed over Bernie invading the Democrats, and yet there's not a whole lot of acceptance for third parties. So what else is there? What hope is there for the left in electoral politics? I know a lot of my anarchist friends believe the entire electoral process is a basically just a scam, but I personally would like to be more optimistic and look for some kind of path forward. I'm tired of feeling disenfranchised, not because I literally can't vote, but because my vote represents nothing about my actual views. I'm tired of feeling like I don't have a voice, like there's no one to truly "represent" me within this supposedly representative democracy.

implanted_microchip

08-13-2016, 05:56 PM

DigitalChaos

08-13-2016, 06:19 PM

I don't think its hard to understand so much as inexcusably silly exactly because its relative. It is a complete false equivalency.

You so realize that everything after this is you justifying a fear vote against trump because of your perceived relatively to Hillary right? And it's a false binary on top of that.

DigitalChaos

08-13-2016, 06:25 PM

Mantra hits on the dilemma. EVERY cycle is "the most important ever" election. So it's either complete bullshit, or every year the consequence of making the "wrong" choice is getting worse. But the people promoting "least worst" voting can never touch on the strong possibility that voting "least worst" is what gets us increasingly shitty "options" in the next cycle. Nope. Can't talk about that.

cynicmuse

08-13-2016, 06:56 PM

Here's an article (http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a21997/donald-trump-katy-tur/) by a reporter who has been part of the Trump press pack since he announced his candidacy. I normally wouldn't post an article from Marie Claire, but it highlights Trump's treatment of the press and people who disagree with him. Lowlights from the article include the time that Secret Service felt the need to escort her to her car after Trump complained about her to the audience at a rally.

Deepvoid

08-14-2016, 08:30 AM

After the election it will be fun to go on youtube and watch vintage clips of Trump surrogates like Katrina Pierson go on about how Trump is going to win in a landslide.

Katrina Pierson must be the dumbest political commentator or whatever you wanna call her, on the planet.
They need to give her the mic more often. Every time she opens her mouth, she puts the Trump campaign in trouble.
Obama got the US into Afghanistan? Really?

allegro

08-14-2016, 12:06 PM

I see a lot of people shaming progressive third party voters because of how terrifying Trump is, but I would like to know something: exactly when IS it an acceptable time to vote third party? Is there EVER a time when you'd be okay with third party voters? Centrist Dems acted all annoyed over Bernie invading the Democrats, and yet there's not a whole lot of acceptance for third parties. So what else is there?
I almost voted for Stein in '12. Because Romney winning wasn't a horrifying prospect, I didn't really care. But I just didn't like the Green's platform and I really didn't like Stein's running mate so I voted for Obama. I didn't really care if McCain had won, either, but I was a big Obama fan (he was my Senator). Bernie Sanders is Independent which isn't a party; Sanders occasionally aligns himself with Dems in the Senate but otherwise he's just Independent and isn't beholden to any party or platform.

It wasn't always the way it is today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Repres entatives#1913.E2.80.931948:_Progressive_era). FDR was originally a member of the Liberal Party and was re-elected to Congress as a Democrat.

allegro

08-14-2016, 12:21 PM

So it was known for a year that the Russians were hacking the DNC (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/12/the_latest_evidence_that_russia_was_behind_the_dnc _hack.html).

The top leaders in Congress have known for a year that the Democratic Party was under attack by Russian hackers, Reuters reported on Friday.

Citing three sources familiar with the matter, the news agency said U.S. intelligence officials gave the top leaders in Congress and the ranking members of the intelligence committees from both parties in the House and Senate a top secret briefing that “U.S. spy agencies had concluded that two Russian intelligence agencies or their proxies were targeting the Democratic National Committee, the central organizing body of the Democratic Party.”

The officials included then–House Speaker John Boehner, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid, ranking Senate Intelligence Committee members Sens. Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein, and ranking House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence members Reps. Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff.

The officials were not allowed to disclose information about the hack because U.S. intelligence officials were monitoring the hacking using sources and methods they wanted to remain secret.

On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that the scope of the attack was wider than believed, with the perpetrators having gained access to the private email accounts of as many as 100 Democratic Party officials and groups, including officials in the Hillary Clinton campaign. Reuters reported that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is the fundraising arm for House Democrats, was also successfully targeted. Citing its own sources, CNN confirmed aspects of that Times report on Thursday, including the hacking of officials with direct ties to the Clinton campaign. Former House Speaker Pelosi called the hacking an “electronic Watergate” on Thursday and publicly attributed the attack to Russia.

botley

08-14-2016, 01:07 PM

implanted_microchip

08-14-2016, 01:14 PM

allegro

08-14-2016, 01:53 PM

In general it's terrifying the way that so many people are having such a shrug-based reaction to the idea that a foreign agency is trying to influence the outcome of our elections. That should not be a mild revelation. People's apathy and commitment to their own agendas getting in the way of recognizing how big that is is just depressing. Everyone on any side of the spectrum, in any party and of any belief should be upset by this.
The thing is, we're not sure that it's a "foreign agency," it's just "Russians." Hacking Russians. I don't know that we have any evidence tying said "Russians" to the Russian government or to Putin or to Russian agencies of any kind (the Kremlin is denying it, natch). So we don't know WHY said Russians were doing this, or who GOT them to do it. The FBI is saying Russian "intelligence agencies" but the other U.S. security sources seem to indicate that these are just infamous Russian hackers. If there is a way that the FBI can PROVE that the source of the hacking were Russian "intelligence agencies," then we have a real smoking gun. Edward Snowden says that the NSA does in fact have the ability to trace who was doing the hacking but disclosing their ability to do that calls them out. Right now the FBI is saying "Russian intelligence" which includes agencies hired by the Russians (the two hacking groups already disclosed are now believed to be Russian intelligence agencies).

Either way, it's a Watergate situation by a foreign country. If it's a Russian intelligence agency, it's spying. (which of course we do all the time, LOL (http://time.com/2945037/nsa-surveillance-193-countries/).) But, a foreign country trying to affect the results of an election via hacking? That's some shit we need to be concerned about, yeah. (Not that we haven't affected elections in other countries, ourselves, in history, ugh (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol47no3/article03.html).)

Harry Seaward

08-14-2016, 03:01 PM

http://i.imgur.com/gfYLmdd.jpg

Uh, I feel like this is one of the more horrifying things Donald Trump has said... Where's the attention?

I bet that if you anonymized this quote and asked people whether it was said by Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin or hell, even Tayyip Erdoğan, people would be absolutely stumped as to which is the correct answer. This is a problem, folks.

(I'd love to hear anybody explain why I'm wrong or being dramatic or twisting/misrepresenting his words and why this isn't just as tremendously fascistic as a good chunk of the other shit he says.)

allegro

08-14-2016, 03:12 PM

And it got 14.6K "likes."

He's WAY too sensitive about the press; it's why he is not qualified for the job as President. He can't pay off the press to say only good things about him during the final race, he's a control freak, and this pisses him off.

You listen to Obama handle some of these things in a press conference in a controlled, intelligent manner and then you listen to Trump speak and it's like your drunk uncle.

I was watching a bunch of experts this morning and one guy summed up the temperament needed for the position of President, as an "Air Traffic Controller, handling 500 planes at one time, hearing a bunch of voices all at once," but handling it all very calmly and diplomatically, as a leader.

And Trump is incapable of doing that.

He says bullshit things about Clinton, it ends up repeated by "the press" and somehow THAT'S okay; but when he thinks things are incorrectly said ABOUT HIM, it's not fair.

DigitalChaos

08-14-2016, 03:40 PM

Good thing Saint Greenwald wasn't taken in by all that McCarthyist anti-Russian propaganda, right @DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598)? Oh well. This still sucks and I was hoping your scepticism was warranted. I really didn't want it to be true either.
Nothing that @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) posted changes things as it concerns attribution to who gave the data to wikileaks. Again, intelligence officials back up exactly what I am saying here.

The fact that Russia was attacking the DNC does not mean they gave data to wikileaks. We already know there was more than one group going after the DNC. I would be very unsurprised to learn there were even more. We have also known about foreign entities hacking into targets associated with our elections for a decade now.

And as @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) pointed out, the existing story about a Russian group being inside the DNC doesn't even determine the Russian govt vs some random person inside the Russian border.

Until you have a clear attribution, skepticism is always warranted. The fact that everyone is so ready to jump to the "russia hacked the DNC and gave data to wikileaks to alter our election" train is a bit telling, IMO. There are people who cover hacking and leak attribution all the time. Pay attention to those people if you are after solid truth.

again, I am going to be totally unsurprised if Russia did give the data to wikileaks, but I want to see proper attribution before that gets accepted as the story.

Mantra

08-14-2016, 05:22 PM

@Mantra (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=925) if the nominee was Jeb Bush or John Kasich I would still be voting for Hillary but I wouldn't consider people going third party as people contributing to genuine damage to our country and wouldn't care much whatsoever.

Why? Bush and Kasich suck. Obviously there's a spectrum, and Trump's the worst, and Bush and Kasich are "not as bad Trump" and Clinton is "not as bad as most Republicans." But still, you can acknowledge the degrees of difference between individual candidates while simultaneously acknowledging the fact that, despite those degrees of difference, Bush and Kasich are still horrible at the end of the day.

Jeb Bush believes in getting rid of the ACA, he's a climate change denier, he's anti-choice, he's supports all the shitty free trade deals like PPT and NAFTA, he's against a minimum wage increase, he wants to privatize social security, etc. Imagine how shitty things would have been with a Jeb administration that has the full cooperation of a Republican controlled House and a Republican controlled Senate, plus having the chance to pick four supreme court justices. Yikes.

So it doesn't matter that Trump is worse, the fact remains that they're ALL terrible. No matter how much I dislike HRC and like-minded centrist Dems, there's no denying that they will always be the lesser of two evils when compared with a fucking Republican. Which is why we're stuck with this shitty two-party stalemate, like some kind of political mexican standoff. And frankly, I'm burned out on it, because it seems like a path to nowhere. I really don't see how this current approach could ever result in anything else.

implanted_microchip

08-14-2016, 07:06 PM

@Mantra (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=925) I wouldn't support them and I would be voting for the Democrat, like I said. I just also wouldn't think that people voting third party were being short-sighted or ideologically selfish. This election, I sure as hell do. There's an enormous difference between an administration I disagree with and an administration that says we wouldn't recognize or NATO allies, would want to restrict travel based on religious identity and would want to remove all federal minimum wage, among other insane things.

DigitalChaos

08-14-2016, 07:45 PM

Which is why we're stuck with this shitty two-party stalemate, like some kind of political mexican standoff. And frankly, I'm burned out on it, because it seems like a path to nowhere. I really don't see how this current approach could ever result in anything else.

Congrats, you are years (if not decades) ahead of the majority of the voting populace just by admitting this reality. The next step is to figure out what alternative there is to this path. But I don't think we will get a good national conversation about this until a whole lot more people start realizing what you just outlined. Until then, prepare to be denigrated and dismissed in various ways for even saying this. You are "hurting party unity" or "enjoying privilege" or "allowing the bad guy to win" or "misogynistic" or whatever other asinine conversation suppression technique they try to throw out.

allegro

08-14-2016, 07:49 PM

Nothing that @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) posted changes things as it concerns attribution to who gave the data to wikileaks. Again, intelligence officials back up exactly what I am saying here.

The fact that Russia was attacking the DNC does not mean they gave data to wikileaks. We already know there was more than one group going after the DNC. I would be very unsurprised to learn there were even more. We have also known about foreign entities hacking into targets associated with our elections for a decade now.
To me, wikileaks is another story. We don't know the primary reason for this data hack; if it was to leak it, strategically, in order to interfere with our election process, that's one thing. If Trump was in cahoots with Russia and paid somebody in Russia for this data, that's another thing. We don't know anything right now other than "some notorious Russian hackers, who are often used by Russian intelligence, have been hacking the DNC and affiliates' emails for over a year." WHY is the question, and to whom they were providing the data (besides wikileaks who at this point is obviously the secondary recipient) is the question. We don't know enough, yet. The NSA may know, but they're not telling us.

And, really, it's kinda hard for me to be "horrified" at this info when (a) we have fucked with other countries' elections so many times in the past and (b) we have hacked into other countries' computer systems, including Iran's nuclear system, etc. etc.

In the olden days, hackers primarily existed to demonstrate how shitty your security was. The lessons don't really change.

Aladdinsanity

08-14-2016, 10:15 PM

Secret Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Donald Trump's Campaign Chief (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html)

aggroculture

08-14-2016, 10:56 PM

allegro

08-14-2016, 11:08 PM

Marco Rubio projected to win? After that piss-poor performance in the primaries? Sometimes I despair that the dems aren't trying hard enough, like not even close to hard enough.
It's the demographics in Florida: Not enough legal voters against him, not enough registered voters against him, gerrymandering, etc.

Also, he is a Latino (Cuban) and some Latinos are for him in Florida (there are a LOT of Cubans in Florida who love Rubio just because he is Cuban).

I am really hoping the Dems will at least win back the Senate this term.

allegro

08-14-2016, 11:41 PM

THIS CRACKED ME UP (https://www.facebook.com/TriumphOnHulu/videos/990127774437979/)

DigitalChaos

08-15-2016, 12:22 AM

To me, wikileaks is another story. We don't know the primary reason for this data hack; if it was to leak it, strategically, in order to interfere with our election process, that's one thing. If Trump was in cahoots with Russia and paid somebody in Russia for this data, that's another thing. We don't know anything right now other than "some notorious Russian hackers, who are often used by Russian intelligence, have been hacking the DNC and affiliates' emails for over a year." WHY is the question, and to whom they were providing the data (besides wikileaks who at this point is obviously the secondary recipient) is the question. We don't know enough, yet. The NSA may know, but they're not telling us.

And, really, it's kinda hard for me to be "horrified" at this info when (a) we have fucked with other countries' elections so many times in the past and (b) we have hacked into other countries' computer systems, including Iran's nuclear system, etc. etc.

In the olden days, hackers primarily existed to demonstrate how shitty your security was. The lessons don't really change.

100% agree on the aspect of it being another story. There are quite a few individual stories overlapping on this.

Even if Russia gave wikileaks everything they are leaking, it seems less concerning than what has been happening for the last decade. We have had unknown foreign entities hacking into our various political environments. What did they do? There are a lot of possibilities and all of them go unseen to the public. Blackmailing the candidates during the election, blackmailing after, simply using the information (political plans, relationships, skeletons in closet, etc) to get a huge edge on the US in geopolitical maneuvering, and even manipulating voters through very targeted news stories and social media trends through skillful use of the info they find. That last one has absolutely happened. The rest are very likely. And its been happening for at least a decade. But nobody gives a shit until there is a more public leak? wtf?? At least in this situation it's entirely in view of the public and the only thing being done is essentially a lot more transparency into our own politicians. So yeah, that's concerning but nowhere near the alternatives that have already been happening.

And yes, we absolutely do it to other countries too. We do it more than any country. It's the modern way to spy. Spy intel is leveraged in many ways. Everyone always expects powerful countries to have spies everywhere. It's all the more reason we should have our own shit secured! I can't believe we are now thinking about maaaaybe classifying electoral systems as critical infrastructure. The pessimist in me wonders if the way we have been treating electoral systems is intentional... either because the outcome of those systems doesn't really matter from our government's view... or because the looser security allows our own politicians to manipulate things and gather their own intel.

DigitalChaos

08-15-2016, 12:26 AM

I feel I should post this again. Bloomberg's nearly 1 year investigation into election hacking in latin america. This kind of thing seems much scarier than the DNC data being leaked to the public.

http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-how-to-hack-an-election/

Trump approached Rendón. Rendón says he is also in talks with another US presidential candidate. This is completely amazing to me considering the hacking described in this investigation is relatively basic... you can find a lot of people capable of doing this, especially someone less well known for possible dirty ties.

Substance242

08-15-2016, 01:08 AM

DigitalChaos

08-15-2016, 01:11 AM

^ IIRC, that number is about the same for most elections, sadly. This system has never really represented the majority.

Jinsai

08-15-2016, 01:19 AM

I'm not following this thread, but this is interesting:

Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0

Small percentage of Americans actually picked Clinton and Trump
http://flowingdata.com/2016/08/02/small-percentage-of-americans-actually-picked-clinton-and-trump/

This is when you have to remind yourself that 94.28% of statistics are intentionally misrepresenting something to push a point... and while yes, the articles I've seen which talk about these numbers do address the fact that a large number of Americans don't vote at all, especially in the primaries, they tend to undersell that huge aspect of the statistic by failing to show adjusted numbers... which are basically unexciting. The majority of progressive-leaning people who showed up to vote in the primaries went for Clinton (and it was a close race, so that further skews this stuff), and the majority of conservatives who showed up went for Trump.

The scarier part for me is that Trump received more excited primary votes than any GOP ticket ever, which goes back to a point I was talking about earlier... He has a legion of "silent" voters... He has his fanboys, but he also has the pocket vote for the bigots and the extremists and the reality-TV-watching idiots. This is a larger demographic than we generally like to admit almost certainly exists, but it's silent due to affiliation backlash. These people aren't going to admit they love all the crazy stuff Trump says, they pretend to be horrified by his antics, but secretly they're so eager to vote for him. You can't trust the polls with Trump, but you can believe the primary vote, and it should be seriously troubling... especially since now that he's the nominee, you can assume the silent voting base for Trump is now larger: There's a lot of hardcore conservatives who will say publicly "Oh fuck this guy (and they'll actually mean that part), I'm voting for... Johnson... someone else. I can't, in good conscience, vote for this mad man." Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

implanted_microchip

08-15-2016, 01:48 AM

This worries me: that Clinton will win, but the GOP will hold on to their majorities, and we will have the same gridlock we've had since 2010. http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/despite-trump-us-senate-could-stay-gop-hands-new-swing-state-polls-suggest

Marco Rubio projected to win? After that piss-poor performance in the primaries? Sometimes I despair that the dems aren't trying hard enough, like not even close to hard enough.
I'd like to note that Alan Grayson seemed to have a lot of support here in Florida, and then his entire campaign exploded along with his reputation due to domestic abuse allegations. Local Democrat meetings in my area have had a lot of awkward and uncomfortable talk around him even. He went from someone a lot of people felt proud of to someone no one wants a thing to do with.

Rubio has, essentially, zero real, strong competition, and his recent presidential bid and incumbent status brings a great edge. It's not that he's adored -- it's that Florida is fucking horrible at offering up quality Democratic candidates. It's the same way Rick Scott got reelected -- he isn't exactly well-loved, his opponent just wasn't somebody anyone on the left could hope to get excited for, so there was low motivation to turn out and vote.

Jinsai

08-15-2016, 02:43 AM

oh man... the way Last-Ditch-Rubio fumbled the GOP's hopes to dethrone Trump was so cringe-worthy... I've never felt so embarrassed, just fundamentally sorry for and sympathetic for a Republican... Oh we've all been there Marco, we've tried bravado and bad jokes that fizzled out on a stage, but for the most part not a national stage, and thank god I've never experienced having to watch myself on TV repeatedly tell a crowd of unenthusiastic supporters that Trump probably has a small dick, right before having that juvenile comment play out badly and then be used to bolster the candidacy of the most narcissistic person on earth.

Forever, from that point forward, no matter what happens in Rubio's career... when people hear his name, they're going to quickly visualize the potential size of Trump's cock. That's not a good thing for anyone.

implanted_microchip

08-15-2016, 03:44 AM

Jinsai funny, I just picture the fact that we need to stop with this narrative that Barack Obama doesn't know what he is doing; Barack Obama knows EXACTLY what he is doing and is trying to fundamentally change this country. That of course then reminds me of how we need to stop with this narrative that Barack Obama doesn't know what he is doing; Barack Obama knows EXACTLY what he is doing and is trying to fundamentally change this country.

(As an aside -- Christie's Rubio-destroying "There it is!" was probably the greatest accomplishment of his political career)

aggroculture

08-15-2016, 07:26 AM

Christie destroyed Rubio in a few minutes: it's beyond tragic and absolutely farcical that dems, by not offering a strong alternative, are helping him back on the horse. I wonder how common this shit is. Here in IN we have an embarassment of an outgoing republican governor (Mike Pence), and what are the dems doing to get a democrat elected? Putting forward a guy with zero media visibility: seriously in the three years I've been here I've read two articles on him, period, and one of them was a negative one from the left. Also, he has less than 7000 twitter followers, a minor detail perhaps, but indicative to me. Gregg looks to me so far like he's doing a fantastic job of failing to present himself as the possible next governor.

Where are the visible, young, exciting, democrat candidates? The republicans have spent these last few years cultivating the celebrity and visibility of their next generation of republican candidates (Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Walker). Who do the dems have? Diddly squat. That Bernie Sanders could present himself as a breath of fresh air, something new, says a lot about the lack of excitement dems transmit. Where is their next generation of stars? There's all this talk about the Republican clowncar but to me it seems like it's the dems who don't really have their act together, and this is why they keep losing.

allegro

08-15-2016, 11:14 AM

Where are the visible, young, exciting, democrat candidates? The republicans have spent these last few years cultivating the celebrity and visibility of their next generation of republican candidates (Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Walker). Who do the dems have? Diddly squat. That Bernie Sanders could present himself as a breath of fresh air, something new, says a lot about the lack of excitement dems transmit. Where is their next generation of stars? There's all this talk about the Republican clowncar but to me it seems like it's the dems who don't really have their act together, and this is why they keep losing.

well, we DID have Obama.

There actually ARE a bunch of fresh Dem stars but the media doesn't focus on them much because they're too busy focusing on the Republican Clown Car. Frankly, even I hadn't heard about most of them until the whole "who is Clinton going to choose as VP?" thing came up. Some states have shitty governor prospects, though, yeah.

implanted_microchip

08-15-2016, 12:16 PM

Where are the visible, young, exciting, democrat candidates? The republicans have spent these last few years cultivating the celebrity and visibility of their next generation of republican candidates (Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Walker). Who do the dems have? Diddly squat. That Bernie Sanders could present himself as a breath of fresh air, something new, says a lot about the lack of excitement dems transmit. Where is their next generation of stars? There's all this talk about the Republican clowncar but to me it seems like it's the dems who don't really have their act together, and this is why they keep losing.

MFW someone says there's no exciting younger Democrats

http://epmgaa.media.lionheartdms.com/img/photos/2013/08/14/Cory-Booker_t580.jpg?6b5a8256ea9d40d51e7e604659cffd9fde 3a3970

(Gavin Newsom also seemed poised for some sort of run for higher office eventually; every interview with him just about feels like an audition for the campaign trail)

Mantra

08-15-2016, 12:42 PM

These people aren't going to admit they love all the crazy stuff Trump says, they pretend to be horrified by his antics, but secretly they're so eager to vote for him.

There's also this point that Michael Moore made about "mischievous" voters:

Do not discount the electorate’s ability to be mischievous or underestimate how any millions fancy themselves as closet anarchists once they draw the curtain and are all alone in the voting booth. It’s one of the few places left in society where there are no security cameras, no listening devices, no spouses, no kids, no boss, no cops, there’s not even a friggin’ time limit. You can take as long as you need in there and no one can make you do anything. You can push the button and vote a straight party line, or you can write in Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. There are no rules. And because of that, and the anger that so many have toward a broken political system, millions are going to vote for Trump not because they agree with him, not because they like his bigotry or ego, but just because they can. Just because it will upset the apple cart and make mommy and daddy mad. And in the same way like when you’re standing on the edge of Niagara Falls and your mind wonders for a moment what would that feel like to go over that thing, a lot of people are going to love being in the position of puppetmaster and plunking down for Trump just to see what that might look like. Remember back in the ‘90s when the people of Minnesota elected a professional wrestler as their governor? They didn’t do this because they’re stupid or thought that Jesse Ventura was some sort of statesman or political intellectual. They did so just because they could. Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the country. It is also filled with people who have a dark sense of humor — and voting for Ventura was their version of a good practical joke on a sick political system. This is going to happen again with Trump."

I'm actually not a huge Michael Moore fan, but I thought this was spot on, and also pretty funny.

implanted_microchip

08-15-2016, 03:52 PM

sick among the pure

08-15-2016, 05:33 PM

http://i.imgur.com/gfYLmdd.jpg
As a member of the press, I reply to him with "Yeah, fuck you."

DigitalChaos

08-15-2016, 10:41 PM

I love that a lot of people are questioning our basic voting system (first past the post) but man... there are soooo many complex alternatives that everyone starts looking at. Good luck conveying the value of those systems to voters. People need to just push something super simple like approval voting. It's way easier to sell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db6Syys2fmE

allegro

08-15-2016, 11:08 PM

I'm not following this thread, but this is interesting:

Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0

I agree, that's fascinating.

^ IIRC, that number is about the same for most elections, sadly. This system has never really represented the majority.
That's because it's the voters' own fault, not the systems', except in the case of voting laws like children, non-citizens and felons.

The United States is home to 324 million people.

103 million of them are children, noncitizens or ineligible felons, and they do not have the right to vote.

88 million eligible adults do not vote at all, even in general elections

An additional 73 million did not vote in the primaries this year, but will most likely vote in the general election.

The remaining 60 million people voted in the primaries: about 30 million each for Republicans and Democrats.

But half of the primary voters chose other candidates. Just 14 percent of eligible adults — 9 percent of the whole nation — voted for either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton will be working to win the votes of these three groups:
* People who do not vote
* People who did not vote in primary
* Voters for other primary candidates

littlemonkey613

08-16-2016, 12:08 AM

You so realize that everything after this is you justifying a fear vote against trump because of your perceived relatively to Hillary right? And it's a false binary on top of that.

That's not really the argument I'm making, tho in the main 5 swing states that changes a bit and is when the binary becomes unfortunately real. I think I was pretty clear that my main point is that Trump's ineligibility is obvious enough that it goes beyond how you are politically aligned. Hillary is such a focus because I was responding to the specific claim that Hillary and Trump are "the same" when it comes to being fit to be President. If you support someone else, if you vote 3rd party, do it without propagating the lie that Trump is not uniquely terrifying and unfit. What was any other candidate's version of banning an entire people, building a wall, asking honestly and candidly about why we cant use nukes, the mexican judge etc (obviously this list can go on forever). What is any other candidate's version of this ticking time bomb of a personality and hatred? It's not comparable.

Sarah K

08-16-2016, 12:55 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

implanted_microchip

08-16-2016, 01:29 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=7hzaBHnNI_I
Sarah K I'm partial to this version, myself

Deepvoid

08-16-2016, 06:30 AM

I'm truly getting concerned for Rudy Giuliani's mental health.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/291489-giuliani-no-successful-radical-islamic-attacks-in-8-years

Maybe this is his way of revealing that 9/11 really was an inside job after all?

That's what I was thinking! Haha.
See, I went to infowars because I thought they'd be all over this but the problem is that Infowars are huge Trump supporters.
There's literally not one mention of Rudy's quote. Nothing on Breitbart either.

Here's your daily Katrina Pierson quote (my emphasis):

“The voters want someone that’s gonna fight back because they are tired of seeing left-wing reporters literally beat Trump supporters into submission into supporting policies they don’t agree with,” Pierson told Fox Business Network. “It just shuts them down and that’s not what they’re seeing in this campaign.”

I haven't seen any reports of left-wing journalists beating Trump supporters yet.

telee.kom

08-16-2016, 11:21 AM

Am I the only one who find Trump hilarious?

Sarah K

08-16-2016, 11:51 AM

Yeah. He's super hilarious. Racism. Misogyny. Xenophobia. Being totally disconnected from reality. Temper tantrums.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

DigitalChaos

08-16-2016, 11:54 AM

If you support someone else, if you vote 3rd party, do it without propagating the lie that Trump is not uniquely terrifying and unfit. What was any other candidate's version of banning an entire people, building a wall, asking honestly and candidly about why we cant use nukes, the mexican judge etc (obviously this list can go on forever). What is any other candidate's version of this ticking time bomb of a personality and hatred? It's not comparable.

Really? Because I can find plenty of comparisons with both presidential candidates and elected presidents.
Andrew Jackson
Henry Ford
Reagan
etc.

And you are ignoring how "uniquely bad" Hillary is when it comes to Dem candidates. She is Dick Cheney with a vagina.

The "fear" I have over what happens in a Trump presidency vs what happens in a Clinton presidency is marginally different. It's not worth fear-voting for one over the other, to me.

DigitalChaos

08-16-2016, 12:19 PM

This "NSA Hack" (it's really just a group connect to NSA) story is being speculated to be connected to the DNC Leak. So, I give you this:
http://i.imgur.com/T7ZaS4I.png
http://i.imgur.com/T7ZaS4I.png

telee.kom

08-16-2016, 12:28 PM

Yeah. He's super hilarious. Racism. Misogyny. Xenophobia. Being totally disconnected from reality. Temper tantrums.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

I think people take him way too seriously, I take these elections as sort of stand up comedy and watching him is at least entertaining

allegate

08-16-2016, 12:32 PM

Am I the only one who find Trump hilarious?

http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/12/125864/2234209-no_you_re_not_the_only_one.jpg

Dr Channard

08-16-2016, 12:36 PM

And you are ignoring how "uniquely bad" Hillary is when it comes to Dem candidates. She is Dick Cheney with a vagina.
　
Ooh la la, sounds sexy!

Not a fan of either candidate, but Hillary feels somewhat like the lesser of two evils. From a political layman’s perspective, the current campaign feels like if given the choice to support only either Richard Nixon (Hillary) or Jim Jones (Trump), and in that scenario Nixon suddenly seems like not so bad an option. Not looking for a fight or anything, and admittedly I could be completely wrong here, but at times listening to Trump I can’t help but think, wow this is what it must have been like to listen to Jim Jones.

Amaro

08-16-2016, 12:45 PM

I think people take him way too seriously, I take these elections as sort of stand up comedy and watching him is at least entertaining

I have the capacity to find him entertaining because I genuinely believe he will lose.

telee.kom

08-16-2016, 12:58 PM

Yeah I think he's loosing steam lately after his comments about assassination of Hilary. Also his inclination towards Russia is not very good PR move. I'm not even sure he want to win, he could be like Boris Johnson of American elections.

Frozen Beach

08-16-2016, 01:00 PM

Yeah. He's super hilarious. Racism. Misogyny. Xenophobia. Being totally disconnected from reality. Temper tantrums.

HAHAHAHAHAHA
Just because someone is a piece of shit doesn't mean you can't find their actions or the shit that comes out of their mouth funny. See Herman Cain for example. That guy is a piece of shit. But him being a piece of shit will never not make some of his stupidity funny, like quoting Pokemon and the whole Cain Train stuff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOFB-2yJzCY

Sarah K

08-16-2016, 01:16 PM

Of course he has no chance of winning at this point.

But the fact that someone could be a walking, breathing, YouTube comment section and become the nominee of a major party is fucking terrifyingly awful. Lots of shitty humans around here.

DigitalChaos

08-16-2016, 01:35 PM

　
Ooh la la, sounds sexy!

http://i.imgur.com/XIAofVR.jpg

telee.kom

08-16-2016, 01:37 PM

3 months is a long time in politics though, I think it depends what kind of shit they dig on Hilary just before elections. And I think if Trump would tone down his rhetoric a little bit he could have a decent chance of winning, but I'm not really sure how much he thinks when he speaks, so there's that. Also the fact that someone like Trump could be a serious presidential candidate is partly due to how much of a weak candidate Hilary is.

Oh and your two party system in regards of presidency is god damn ridiculous

Jinsai

08-16-2016, 02:04 PM

I'm sure people thought Hitler was fucking hilarious too... look at this melodramatic tool, shouting all the time, making silly hand-gestures. Look at that stupid mustache! LOLOLOLOL so funny!

telee.kom

08-16-2016, 02:09 PM

haha that didn't take long, yeah Trump is literally Hitler

Jinsai

08-16-2016, 02:23 PM

haha that didn't take long, yeah Trump is literally Hitler

I'm not saying he's Hitler. I'm saying that I'm sure a lot of people thought Hitler's "unique" mustache was ridiculous looking, totally hilarious, just like Trump's pasty orange face and stupid comb-over. I'm sure they thought the ridiculous xenophobic jingoistic nonsense he was selling was ludicrous sounding.

I'm saying you're laughing at something that isn't funny.

Frozen Beach

08-16-2016, 02:32 PM

I'm saying that I'm sure a lot of people thought Hitler's "unique" mustache was ridiculous looking, totally hilarious
Hitler's mustache wasn't unique. The toothbrush moustache was normal and popular before his reputation of having one ruined it. Charlie Chaplin and Oliver Hardy had them as well.

edit: And before you say "you're missing the point" I know your point, I'm just correcting you on something you stated that's inaccurate.

telee.kom

08-16-2016, 02:33 PM

You are comparing him to Hitler, which is ridiculous. He's an idiot, but that's about it.

Khrz

08-16-2016, 03:48 PM

And you're deliberately missing the point so that you can ridicule his comment without having to actually address it.

telee.kom

08-16-2016, 04:12 PM

Khrz

08-16-2016, 04:23 PM

what Trump did to deserve this comparison? Because he's sexist? Because he made fun of some disabled reporter? .

If that's all you took away from Trump's campaign you might have missed a few episodes, you might want to catch up before downplaying the fascism parallels.

telee.kom

08-16-2016, 04:52 PM

I just don't take this guy seriously and I don't know how anyone can. He's babbling empty phrases, he's just saying big words and outrages comments that appears bold and strong to his target audience. He's a marketing guy. You really think he's gonna build a wall around entire south american border? Please, he's not a monarch or emperor. He'd be just a president. It's overrated. I know first hand what it means to have a shitty president, you'll be embarrassed for him, but in reality there's not that much he can do. And seeing these two candidates, I would be embarrassed either way if I was American, so I'm having hard time to really jump on Trump hate train that's going on around here

Khrz

08-16-2016, 05:27 PM

It's not like elected officials ever built a wall overnight or ever segregated a whole class of people due to their race or religion, or ever gagged their whole media, right.

Jinsai

08-16-2016, 05:47 PM

I understand what the point is. It's ridiculous. Trump is not a dangerous man, he's just a man with a big mouth. And of course you can argue people thought that about Hitler too; it's a non argument, what Trump did to deserve this comparison? Because he's sexist? Because he made fun of some disabled reporter? Come on. Even if elected, there's not that much he can do by himself. People are comparing things they merely don't like or agree with fascism way more often than they should. It devolves the term of any meaning.

Hitler wasn't dangerous either, until he ascended to power. I'm sure Stephen Hawking is smarter than either of us, and he thinks Trump poses a threat to civilization.

I'm a little tired of people invoking Godwin's law. We're supposed to learn from history, not use it as a means to dismiss a modern parallel as hyperbole. Hitler was a loudmouth sociopath who appealed to nationalistic pride by demonizing the "other," and faulting the other for stealing jobs and the stagnant economy. He appealed to fear, ignorance, and prejudice. He rallied people against groups for religious affiliation.

It's not hyperbole, and he could have been worse. He could have WON the war. He could have had nuclear weapons. Trump has insinuated that he wants to make it illegal to criticize him in a slanderous way. He wants to "go after the families" of suspected terrorists. Get more extreme with torture. Defund the EPA and make our military so powerful "nobody will mess with us." Roll back civil rights. Monitor people for religious affiliation and bar people from entering the country for their religious beliefs. So yeah, I think it's dangerous to give him access to our nuclear weapons and have him appoint Supreme Court seats. This isn't a joke.

Frozen Beach

08-16-2016, 06:00 PM

I'm sure Stephen Hawking is smarter than either of us, and he thinks Trump poses a threat to civilization
Just because someone is smart in a few fields doesn't mean they're smart about every subject, you know. If you want an example, look at Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Mantra

08-17-2016, 12:26 AM

Trump is definitely funny, mostly in a dark way.

DigitalChaos

08-17-2016, 12:34 AM

allegro that post was good, why delete it?

I am curious about the possible insurrection as a result of Trump. What would that look like? I mean, I could see one coming from Hillary, but a sizable portion of people who have the balls to carry through with insurrection are fans of Trump at some level. Though... i guess quite a few are fans of him due to the chaos he would create.

DigitalChaos

08-17-2016, 12:46 AM

Just because someone is smart in a few fields doesn't mean they're smart about every subject, you know. If you want an example, look at Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Yeah.... i mean, I have mad respect for Hawkings... but it's not like he is just universally intelligent on every topic and surpasses the knowledge of every human. He specializes in physics.

Trump says everything. The people who dislike him pick out all the bad shit he says. The people who like him pick out all the good stuff he says. Nobody knows what a Trump presidency would be like.

Hitler also did similar shit. Listen to some of his speeches. They were so goddamned empty. They just made people feel good and the people would fill in the details with their own desires and emotions. But even if we had actual Hitler running for president, the outcome wouldn't be what happened in Germany. This is the USA, not Germany. Our governance model is very different. We have a lot of checks in place to help prevent abuse of power.

People who are concerned about what Trump could do as president should be FUCKING PISSED about the precedent Obama has paved for increasing executive power. I still don't think this has really solidified for Obama supporters yet. A Trump presidency would be quite the awakening for those people who forgot about the limits on executive power and were totally fine with unilateral executive action.

telee.kom

08-17-2016, 01:03 AM

Im a little tired of people invoking Godwin's law. We're supposed to learn from history, not use it as a means to dismiss a modern parallel as hyperbole. Hitler was a loudmouth sociopath who appealed to nationalistic pride by demonizing the "other," and faulting the other for stealing jobs and the stagnant economy. He appealed to fear, ignorance, and prejudice. He rallied people against groups for religious affiliation.

What Trump's saying about muslims is something that half of European politicians are saying in one way or another. He's really not that special. He only switched the world refugee, for the world Muslim, because US is too far to have to deal with refugees, he had to think of a way how to gain sympathy from people who are distrustful of Muslim and/or are affraid of terrorist attacks happening on US soil. You know what the real problem is? That nobody else is giving any other solution. So Trump don't want Muslims in the country. Outrages. What is Hillary going to do about terrorist threat? Give deepest condolences when something happen? I'm bit projecting here, because this issue is lot more prevalent in Europe right now, but you get what I'm saying right? Instead of saying how Trump is literally the devil, offer some alternative and solutions to these issues. But painting wild parallels with Nazi Germany is easier I guess

allegro

08-17-2016, 01:15 AM

What Trump's saying about muslims is something that half of European politicians are saying in one way or another. He's really not that special. He only switched the world refugee, for the world Muslim, because US is too far to have to deal with refugees, he had to think of a way how to gain sympathy from people who are distrustful of Muslim and/or are affraid of terrorist attacks happening on US soil. You know what the real problem is? That nobody else is giving any other solution. So Trump don't want Muslims in the country. Outrages. What is Hillary going to do about terrorist threat? Give deepest condolences when something happen? I'm bit projecting here, because this issue is lot more prevalent in Europe right now, but you get what I'm saying right? Instead of saying how Trump is literally the devil, offer some alternative and solutions to these issues. But painting wild parallels with Nazi Germany is easier I guess

But that's not why people here primarily don't like Trump or think he's dangerous: He's dangerous because he doesn't know the separation of power, the importance of the Executive branch supporting the Judicial branch, that his MULTIPLE (300+) current corporate lawsuits could be very problematic to this country, that he could be intending to continue to run his companies from the Oval Office (and benefit from his position, if he wins) which is unprecedented (and not allowed). He also wants to deport thousand and thousands of useful Mexican Americans, many of whom he characterizes as "rapists" and "drug transporters" which is racist and nuts considering that he himself uses many of them under H1B visas to do landscaping at his estates. He claims he wants to bolster Social Security, but he secretly had a meeting with the House speaker and admitted that he lied and wants to do the opposite and gut the Social Security system and is only saying the opposite so that he'll win. He's an economics major but it's obvious that he's never read the U.S. Constitution, as a child of privilege who never needed to know it and whose high-powered ghetto project father paid people to know such things.

Know why we don't have a lot of terrorist attacks, here, after the single biggest terrorist attack in world history (nearly 3,000 people killed and nearly 6,000 people injured)? Because we already have the biggest system of anti-terrorist security in the world. In the world. Our airports, our train stations, all locked down so fucking tight, you can't fart without somebody knowing it. And we all complain about it. All the time. Now, we have pre-screen ability where we can pay the TSA $85 in advance to submit forms and answers to questions and our fingerprints so we can be pre-screened so we don't have to take our shoes off and be butt-probed and we can take liquids through the scanner and it's good for 2 years. And, we are basically an ISLAND surrounded by armed security and crazy ass terrain. And, even with all that, WE CAN'T FUCKING TOTALLY PREVENT TERRORISM, because we can't prevent our own citizens from going rogue and bringing guns to a night club. Our biggest threat isn't imports: our biggest threat is our own citizens.

We can use Trump's questioning all we want, but it's an idiotic system; people can LIE under that system.

"Do you believe in Sharia law?"

(fingers crossed behind back) "Oh, noooo, not me, I'm all for Amurika! The Star Spangled Bener!"

"Okay, come on in. NEXT!"

But these anti-Muslims aren't Trump's biggest fans:

Trump's biggest fans are people who HATE BLACK PEOPLE AND MEXICANS because they are allegedly costing us the most money.

And Europeans don't really "get" that. They don't get the race problem we have here in the U.S., the White Supremacist, "black people are all on welfare and food stamps and are all taking our tax dollars and Mexicans are using Obamacare to get free healthcare" BULLSHIT meme that passes along in the Republican circles. Trump's biggest fans are those who believe that a billionaire can fix all of our financial problems, can fix our debt, can bring back jobs because, HEY, he says he employs lots of people! He creates jobs so he must know all that, right? He wants to bring back jobs, get rid of agreements with China and Mexico, jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs, win win win win win! We're gonna make America GREAT again through winning through jobs and money and jobs! yay America yay!

Even stupid Americans know that our smallest number of immigrants are from the Middle East, so that's not our main concern; Trump and Trump's follower's main concern is Mexico and Central America and THOSE immigrants. Although, technically, our biggest immigrants right now are from China and India but don't bother trying to convince them of that, their hyperbolic shit is like Jim Jones KoolAid.

No, this isn't a parallel to Nazi Germany. My great grandmother lived in Germany during that time, they were STARVING, the German money was worth NOTHING, and Hitler was charismatic and knew what to say to bolster the German people to believe in Germany again, believe that Germany could rise again from the chaos and thrive again.

Except we aren't in chaos, our money isn't worth nothing, and Trump is no Hitler; and Hitler started out kinda okay but he was absolutely corrupted by power. He didn't go in intending to institute his Final Solution, etc. He just wanted to save Germany. And then it all went to his head, power corrupts people.

Trump is similar to Hitler in that their intended audiences are similar (white, poor, unemployed or underemployed, angry at non-whites about their own situation) but their solutions are totally different.

But Trump's message has the power to set back our civil rights progress - the progress that has taken us over 50 years to build - back to levels we have not seen in 100 years. That is the scary part.

GulDukat

08-17-2016, 04:30 AM

DigitalChaos

08-17-2016, 09:11 AM

No. Giuliani didn't forget about 9/11. Even snopes had to cover that ridiculous shit.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/16/rudy-giuliani-911-remarks/

DigitalChaos

08-17-2016, 09:16 AM

we already have the biggest system of anti-terrorist security in the world. In the world. Our airports, our train stations, all locked down so fucking tight, you can't fart without somebody knowing it.

Have you read this? It's an absolutely amazing read. It should be turned into a movie.

Scenes From the Terrifying, Already Forgotten JFK Airport Shooting That Wasn’t
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/the-terrifying-jfk-airport-shooting-that-wasnt.html

implanted_microchip

08-17-2016, 10:14 AM

Crooked Manafort! Sad!!!

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c01989a47ee5421593ba1b301ec07813/ap-sources-manafort-tied-undisclosed-foreign-lobbying

allegro

08-17-2016, 10:43 AM

Have you read this? It's an absolutely amazing read. It should be turned into a movie.

Scenes From the Terrifying, Already Forgotten JFK Airport Shooting That Wasn’t
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/the-terrifying-jfk-airport-shooting-that-wasnt.html

I saw it happen on TV while we were on vacation, and we were laughing over the true cause (http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-08-15/2-terminals-at-jfk-airport-resuming-operations-after-scare), wtf. We're SO paranoid about mass shooters that THIS happens. Because our reality is "mass shooter." We are constantly paranoid about mass shooters (even though the Boston Marathon was hit by pressure cooker bombs, and the TSA is screening our luggage and our bodies for box cutters and explosives). We have been conditioned, for around 40 years, to be terrified of mass shooters. Security guards sobbing, though? That whole thing should end up being a big lesson for the facility.

Sarah K

08-17-2016, 10:53 AM

I know that I have a COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL fear of being caught up in some sort of mass shooting, homemade bombing, truck driving through a crowd, etc event. Like every time I am around a large group of people somewhere, it crosses my mind now.

Staying home 4 lyfe.

allegro

08-17-2016, 11:06 AM

It's not an unfounded fear. Back after that McDonald's Massacre in 1984 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre), every time I went to McDonald's I'd sit near a door or plan out some map of escape and I know I was not alone in that mindset. It has become so common that now a lot of us just instinctively look for the exits. I read an interesting article online written by a guy who does that kind of thing for a living and gave some pointers, like if that ever happened at a Food Court at a mall, there's only one exit (the main one) but don't use that; every restaurant at the Food Court has a kitchen entrance in back, so jump the counter and go out that way. Because that's the society in which we live: mapping out mass shooter emergency exits.

I used to work with a girl who witnessed the MGM Grand fire in Vegas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Grand_fire) where 87 people died, and people were jumping out of the windows (she was staying down the street at Caesar's). Years later, we all went to do a computer trade show in Vegas and stayed at the Vegas Hilton, and she was TERRIFIED of staying at a high-rise hotel again, so she got on her hands-and-knees in the hallway to map out an escape plan to the emergency exit stairwell with her eyes closed, knowing if there was a fire the lights would be out and you have to get close to the ground to not die of smoke inhalation. And we couldn't really laugh at her because, well, yeah ... once you witness shit like that, can you blame her?

telee.kom

08-17-2016, 11:16 AM

Trump is similar to Hitler in that their intended audiences are similar (white, poor, unemployed or underemployed, angry at non-whites about their own situation) but their solutions are totally different.

But Trump's message has the power to set back our civil rights progress - the progress that has taken us over 50 years to build - back to levels we have not seen in 100 years. That is the scary part.

I agree he's giving voice and he's enabling people who are racist pieces of shit. People who normally wouldn't have the audacity to spout racist shit out loud, they are his audience to some degree. But the cat's out of a bag, I don't think these people are going anywhere even if he'd lost. But "progressive" left is not without blame either. I'm pretty sure decent amount of his voters are just people who are sick of the way left is heading, tired of "PC culture" maybe. There is a rift between people, sure, but it's not necessarily only Trump's fault.

In Europe the paralel with blacks people would be gypsies. Or at least these are the same arguments I'm hearing about gypsies from nationalistic parties here. They are more or less based on reality though. The poorly educated red neck types of people who will fall for Trump's campaign will always be here, I think you should be more worried about those other demographics who got Trump to a position he's in right now.

allegro

08-17-2016, 11:26 AM

In Europe the paralel with blacks people would be gypsies. Or at least these are the same arguments I'm hearing about gypsies from nationalistic parties here. They are more or less based on reality though. The poorly educated red neck types of people who will fall for Trump's campaign will always be here, I think you should be more worried about those other demographics who got Trump to a position he's in right now.
There are a lot of people who are racist in this country who aren't necessarily "rednecks." These people blame any kind of fault in our economy, blame their inability to get a better-paying job, blame their unemployment or underemployment, blame the national debt, blame our troops in Afghanistan, everything, on the black President, on Mexicans, on black people, etc. That's our reality. Trump isn't ALL about racism, he's also about the economy and speaking to the conservative element who have a conservative view of the economy and about social issues (climate change, abortion, safety net programs, entitlement programs, etc.), but a great deal of these people tend to blame these issues on blacks and Latinos.

Look, my boss is a Jewish attorney, has been an attorney for over 45 years, has a Juris Doctorate degree, and he is still a Republican racist.

Nobody is saying any of this is Trump's "fault" but giving VOICE to this mindset, having a leader who JUSTIFIES this mindset sets us backward. I don't believe for one second that Trump even BELIEVES a lot of the racist shit he says; he just knows there is a demographic out there that he can tap into, and he is a master marketer and he's marketing to that demographic. The demographic that has believed, for decades, that the bleeding heart liberals are feeding the poor with welfare and food stamps and this only gives way to people sitting around doing nothing (even though the welfare reform act was passed in the '90s, and that the vast majority of people on welfare and food stamps are white), the demographic that says that we can't afford to give money to old people (yeah, fuck them and let them die, so long as those white people in Kentucky can stay on Disability), the demographic that says that Mexicans are "taking our jobs" (that no Americans really want), etc.

DigitalChaos

08-17-2016, 11:39 AM

I saw it happen on TV while we were on vacation, and we were laughing over the true cause (http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-08-15/2-terminals-at-jfk-airport-resuming-operations-after-scare), wtf. We're SO paranoid about mass shooters that THIS happens. Because our reality is "mass shooter." We are constantly paranoid about mass shooters (even though the Boston Marathon was hit by pressure cooker bombs, and the TSA is screening our luggage and our bodies for box cutters and explosives). We have been conditioned, for around 40 years, to be terrified of mass shooters. Security guards sobbing, though? That whole thing should end up being a big lesson for the facility.
It's an almost perfect commentary on culture and policy of the last 15 years. Run from the woman in the hijab! Run from the sound of "gunfire" when you don't even know what gunfire sounds like! Fear everything and know nothing! fuck...

The sobbing guards were odd, but the security who were inciting MORE panic were just completely fucked up. It brings back memories to when I was working at a gas station in semi-rural WI on 9/11. Members of the local PD were coming in and gathering in the evening, doing absolutely no aspect of their job. One of them starts talking to me (I'm just stuck at the register thinking "please fucking make this stop") and she starts fucking bawling her eyes out because of the fear that she will have to deal with going to war with terrorists on the streets or something. In my head... "holy fuck, i can't count on these people to do anything but write tickets"

I know that I have a COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL fear of being caught up in some sort of mass shooting, homemade bombing, truck driving through a crowd, etc event. Like every time I am around a large group of people somewhere, it crosses my mind now.

Staying home 4 lyfe.
That occasionally crosses my mind, but I am waaaaay more concerned about the crowd itself. This article did *not* help at all. I really fucking hate crowds. I never cared when I was younger, but it's something that has grown with me.

I used to work with a girl who witnessed the MGM Grand fire in Vegas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Grand_fire) where 87 people died

... I was in that exact building a week ago. It's now Bally's. I was reading the wikipedia article about it while on the top floor. There was a 15min line you had to wait in to get up or down the elevators. They made massive improvements and it's an irrational fear, but it certainly makes you feel off when you realize the history of your surroundings.

allegro

08-17-2016, 11:48 AM

It's an almost perfect commentary on culture and policy of the last 15 years. Run from the woman in the hijab! Run from the sound of "gunfire" when you don't even know what gunfire sounds like! Fear everything and know nothing! fuck...

The sobbing guards were odd, but the security who were inciting MORE panic were just completely fucked up. It brings back memories to when I was working at a gas station in semi-rural WI on 9/11. Members of the local PD were coming in and gathering in the evening, doing absolutely no aspect of their job. One of them starts talking to me (I'm just stuck at the register thinking "please fucking make this stop") and she starts fucking bawling her eyes out because of the fear that she will have to deal with going to war with terrorists on the streets or something. In my head... "holy fuck, i can't count on these people to do anything but write tickets"
Exactly. The people at JFK are trained to spot certain things but they were never trained for when the day happens, and that training needs to happen, for sure. I hope this training now occurs. The whole thing about "we can't have people on the tarmac" is true, because there are active planes out there, but if there is a possible mass shooter INSIDE then you certainly should want the people OUTSIDE. They have to establish some kind of new protocol, which should focus on calmer evacuation. Because, really, PEOPLE ARE GONNA PANIC. IT'S WHAT WE DO.

I remember on Sept 11 in Chicago, people were nearly RUNNING DOWN PEDESTRIANS trying to get out of the Loop because they thought the Sears Tower would be the next building hit by a plane. No "courtesy" or anything, just GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY WAYYYYYYYYY!!!!

Bally's / MGM Grand: I was really surprised that they opened it back up after that history, really. It was awful, just awful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o8dRs1R6O0

DigitalChaos

08-17-2016, 11:50 AM

allegro

08-17-2016, 12:01 PM

God damn Biden fucked up and the look on Hillary's face is amazing.

While explaining that Trump can't be trusted with nuke codes, Biden leaks info about the fucking nuke codes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV8RSpUfrOo

No, actually, that's kinda common knowledge that somebody else carries the biscuit and that the Secretary of Defense has to second the nuclear launch; you can't have just one person know the codes because if that person is kidnapped and they torture him ... or if he/she DIES ... Biden merely pointed out one of the guys who does it, but wherever Obama is, you can clearly SEE the giant overstuffed briefcase carried by somebody near Obama, it's glaringly obvious.

See Nuclear Football (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football):

Operation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_football#Operation):

Before the order can be processed by the military, the president must be positively identified using a special code issued on a plastic card, nicknamed the "biscuit".[4] The United States has a two-man rule in place, and while only the president can order the release of nuclear weapons, the order must be confirmed by the Secretary of Defense (there is a hierarchy of succession in the event that the president is killed in an attack).[4] Once all the codes have been verified, the military would issue attack orders to the proper units. These orders are given and then re-verified for authenticity. It is argued that the President has almost single authority to initiate an nuclear attack since the Secretary of Defense is required to verify the order, but cannot legally veto it.[5][6][7]

The football is carried by one of the rotating presidential military aides, whose work schedule is described by a top-secret rota (one from each of the five service branches). This person is a commissioned officer in the U.S. military, pay-grade O-4 or above, who has undergone the nation's most rigorous background check (Yankee White).[8] These officers are required to keep the football readily accessible to the president at all times. Consequently, the aide, football in hand, is always either standing or walking near the president, including riding on Air Force One, Marine One, or the presidential motorcade with the president.

Btw, the security is SO prevalent around the President (and that Football), it's nuts. G worked at O'Hare and whenever Air Force One is scheduled to land, bomb-sniffing dogs first come up into the tower, and Secret Service must be IN THE TOWER to supervise all Air Traffic Controllers who control Air Force One (my husband has worked AFO at the Center while AFO was en route).

telee.kom

08-17-2016, 12:04 PM

I don't believe for one second that Trump even BELIEVES a lot of the racist shit he says; he just knows there is a demographic out there that he can tap into, and he is a master marketer and he's marketing to that demographic.

Oh definitely, that's why the guy's funny to me. He's combination of clever marketing and genuine idiocy wrapped in complete shallowness. He's like a caricature of a politician from Simpsons or something.

Jinsai

08-17-2016, 12:16 PM

Oh definitely, that's why the guy's funny to me. He's combination of clever marketing and genuine idiocy wrapped in complete shallowness. He's like a caricature of a politician from Simpsons or something.

he's also an egomaniacal man-baby sociopathic narcissist.

DigitalChaos

08-17-2016, 12:27 PM

No, actually, that's kinda common knowledge

Biden sure seems to have caught himself there, and Hillary seems to have noticed. It is certainly common knowledge that the VP keeps the codes near though.

MGM fire: I hadn't actually gone beyond the wikipedia page on that. Its surprising what a cluster fuck that was. I'm so glad this was the last year of defcon at Bally's now. Off to Caesars!

Sutekh

08-17-2016, 01:01 PM

I'm a little tired of people invoking Godwin's law. We're supposed to learn from history, not use it as a means to dismiss a modern parallel as hyperbole.

What's even more annoying is that Godwin' s law isn't "first one to make a Nazi equation loses the argument", it actually refers to the inevitability of the Nazis being referred to in a conversation, if the exchange goes on long enough. People not only use the term too often to cop out of debates, but they don't even understand what it means to begin with

Jinsai

08-17-2016, 02:07 PM

re: that clip of Biden... It was a gaff, he's prone to them, but he's not letting classified info slip. If Hillary showed a troubled look at his bumbling the message, it was minor. All Biden needed to convey was "Don't let someone who Tweets like an eight-year-old have anything to do with nuclear weapons, period."

We know there's back-up protocols in place. This isn't a revelation. If anything, I'd wonder if this is some kind of weird non-story being blown out of proportion to ultimately play down the concern about Trump having the nuclear codes. "Hey, everyone's worried about this dipshit saying 'you're fired' and then pushing the nuke button, what if we try to draw attention to the fact that he can't just do that if he feels like it on a whim? Let's make it look like this thing that Biden brought up about the nuclear authorization detail officer was a slip up that embarrassed Clinton, and... hope that it makes people think they just got some secret juicy classified information... but ultimately they realize that it's not as simple as 'Trump turns a key and blows up North Korea.' Wha la, two birds one stone."

DigitalChaos

08-17-2016, 02:17 PM

http://i.imgur.com/RBJ6uxp.jpg

I just want to know why he stopped himself.

allegro

08-17-2016, 02:20 PM

Biden sure seems to have caught himself there, and Hillary seems to have noticed. It is certainly common knowledge that the VP keeps the codes near though.
Yeah, it's not a big top secret thing, the "Biscuit" is the laminated list of Gold Codes that actually change DAILY and the VP has the codes just like the President in case the President is killed or held hostage or whatever, but the President has somebody carrying the whole "football" (briefcase carrying not only the Biscuit but also the huge number of suggested "plans").

I think Hillary's "reaction" was the POSSIBILITY OF TRUMP HAVING THE BISCUIT, not Biden disclosing any kind of top secret shit (he wasn't).

Bill Clinton actually misplaced the Biscuit, once. When Ronald Reagan was shot, the Biscuit was found in a hospital floor? SEE THIS (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/nervous-about-nukes-again-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-button-there-is-no-button/2016/08/03/085558b6-4471-11e6-8856-f26de2537a9d_story.html).

The Football (on left with little antenna sticking out of it):
https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/07/14/Others/Images/2016-07-14/GettyImages-533172051468499470.jpg?uuid=3Oqx0km-EeaNrAxuSszFsQ

allegate

08-17-2016, 02:36 PM

Conservative Radio Host Admits Right-Wing Media Created a 'Monster'

“We’ve basically eliminated any of the referees, the gatekeepers,” Sykes states. “There’s nobody. Let’s say that Donald Trump basically makes whatever you want to say, whatever claim he wants to make. And everybody knows it’s a falsehood. The big question of my audience, it is impossible for me to say that, ‘By the way, you know it’s false.’ And they’ll say, ‘Why? I saw it on Allen B. West.’ Or they’ll say, ‘I saw it on a Facebook page.’ And I’ll say, ‘the New York Times did a fact-check.’ And they’ll say, ‘Oh, that’s the New York Times. That’s bullshit.' There’s nobody. You can’t go to anybody and say, ‘Look, here are the facts.’”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0BW-6bVQI8

allegro

08-17-2016, 02:44 PM

http://i.imgur.com/RBJ6uxp.jpg

I just want to know why he stopped himself.

I still don't know why he got so much shit for this double-barrel shotgun "gaffe" - I thought it was awesome advise, my Daddy taught me the same thing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_LEfNFMAys

DigitalChaos

08-17-2016, 03:03 PM

I still don't know why he got so much shit for this double-barrel shotgun "gaffe" - I thought it was awesome advise, my Daddy taught me the same thing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_LEfNFMAys

because what he advised is illegal in most areas, including the location that Biden's house is (he said he gave this advice to his wife too).

He described a laundry list of likely charges that relate to brandishing and discharging a weapon. Not to mention the tactically unsound self-defense advice...

allegro

08-17-2016, 03:05 PM

because what he advised is illegal in most areas, including the location that Biden's house is (he said he gave this advice to his wife too). .
Yeah, I think DISCHARGING the weapon is a dumb idea, as what goes up must come down (although shot is usually not a problem). Just COCKING the thing is enough to make people run like hell. But if you are scared of an intruder coming into your house, what's the use of having a gun? Are you supposed to say, "Stop! Or I'll go get that gun that's locked up in my gun cabinet! Which I'm not allowed to brandish or shoot!"

Meanwhile, this is just lovely (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-balkans-biden-trump-idUSKCN10R1U0).

DigitalChaos

08-17-2016, 03:25 PM

Yeah, I think DISCHARGING the weapon is a dumb idea, as what goes up must come down (although shot is usually not a problem). Just COCKING the thing is enough to make people run like hell. But if you are scared of an intruder coming into your house, what's the use of having a gun? Are you supposed to say, "Stop! Or I'll go get that gun that's locked up in my gun cabinet! Which I'm not allowed to brandish or shoot!"
The "intruder" in Biden's description wasn't even in the house in that scenario, so that's another issue in most places. The use of a gun also weighs on perceived imminent danger and threat to life (someone lurking outside doesn't allow you to shoot at them in most places). A lot of times the mere presence of someone in your home isn't enough, you need to have "reasonable belief" that they are going to imminently inflict harm on an occupant. And frequently that harm must be all the way to the extreme of loss of life. Also, there is usually a mandate for "appropriate force", which is usually along the lines of whatever is sufficient to stop the threat but nothing considered excessive.

And that's not counting menacing, and a whole bunch of other issues. IIRC, some people actually tried citing Biden as a defense for these kinds of things... yet still landed in jail. Unfortunately, a lot of people already were under the same belief as Biden (thanks movies!) and get screwed over.

telee.kom

08-17-2016, 04:43 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdYRN8Clddw

This is just pathetic

allegro

08-17-2016, 04:50 PM

The "intruder" in Biden's description wasn't even in the house in that scenario, so that's another issue in most places. The use of a gun also weighs on perceived imminent danger and threat to life (someone lurking outside doesn't allow you to shoot at them in most places). A lot of times the mere presence of someone in your home isn't enough, you need to have "reasonable belief" that they are going to imminently inflict harm on an occupant. And frequently that harm must be all the way to the extreme of loss of life. Also, there is usually a mandate for "appropriate force", which is usually along the lines of whatever is sufficient to stop the threat but nothing considered excessive.

And that's not counting menacing, and a whole bunch of other issues. IIRC, some people actually tried citing Biden as a defense for these kinds of things... yet still landed in jail. Unfortunately, a lot of people already were under the same belief as Biden (thanks movies!) and get screwed over.

Ah, I'm from Michigan and Illinois, both of which have castle doctrine that justify use of deadly force (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine). In most states, the mere presence of the intruder in the home is enough to assume fear and danger (see California's castle doctrine).

Here is Delaware's castle doctrine (where Biden is from) (http://www.gunlaws101.com/state/law/delaware/castle-doctrine).

Shooting a shotgun into the air in a rural area to thwart an invasion is probably not going to get many cops to do anything. You aren't aiming at anyone. Fireworks are a bigger danger.

(Biden is a lawyer, and a gun owner.)

Jinsai

08-17-2016, 04:59 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdYRN8Clddw

This is just pathetic

Do you honestly have a problem with a news channel shutting someone off for repeatedly ranting about how Hillary was a mafia wife to a serial sex abuser? Would you have preferred that the newscaster fire back by pointing out that Trump's ex wife accused him of violently raping her? Cutting that guy off is the news version of drift control.

telee.kom

08-17-2016, 05:20 PM

Honestly I don't see the point in cutting any of these off. Are they scared that people wouldn't be able to make their own opinion or what?

allegro

08-17-2016, 06:55 PM

Honestly I don't see the point in cutting any of these off. Are they scared that people wouldn't be able to make their own opinion or what?
I don't think the first segment was deliberately cut off, I think they just genuinely lost the signal. It's no secret (except to morons) that the Bill Clinton administration's crime policies led to mass incarcerations, which had nothing to do with Hillary but she herself has publicly addressed that, she hasn't been hiding out from it (https://thinkprogress.org/hillary-clinton-says-she-agrees-her-role-in-mass-incarceration-was-a-mistake-eaa5b1b523c#.bxzkw2yha).

The FBI director saying that "it is possible" that aggressors accessed HRC's account (read: her server) takes a lot of balls considering that the FBI's own unencrypted server was hacked by the Chinese who stole over 20 million highly classified records, but Comey doesn't say anything about that; further, the *deleted* emails were *deleted* because they were personal and not subject to FOIA, but it doesn't mean that any of those emails were accessed by hackers because it wasn't until AFTER the FOIA-accessed emails were obtained that the emails suddenly appeared on Wikileaks. Which these talking heads don't seem to understand, nor does Comey. Look, the fucking GOVERNMENT can't keep its own servers safe so HRC putting a server in her basement was a good idea. But none of the other shit mentioned is fact, especially the Snopes-proven crap (http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/) about that juvenile defense case (where lawyers know their clients are guilty all the time but still have to represent clients). Welcome to the system. There is LITTLE TO NOTHING in that case that they claim is "widely reported" that is actually TRUE, but none of it is important when you look at the actual facts of the case which is all non-relative to this Presidential campaign since she was an appointed public defense attorney.

Scared of people forming their own opinion from half-truths and bullshit? yes.

The nightly cable news isn't really "news" because of this reason; it's just a bunch of stupid agenda-based propaganda-generating machines for and against either side, spewing half-truths. I won't even WATCH CNN, anymore, and Fox News is a cesspool of shit. MSNBC is a bit better with Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd. I try to never miss an episode of "Meet the Press" on Sunday mornings. But that other shit isn't really "news" nor is it "information" because it's mostly just emotional drama-infused half-truth bullshit with pseudo experts; my DOG knows more about political science. The "real" news stations aren't necessarily pushing an agenda; they just want "real" journalism with real facts, and when people start pushing the conspiracy theory shit that hasn't been fact-checked (or is known to have been disputed by fact-checkers), then it's just conspiracy shit, and it's not fodder for real discussion or information, period.

DigitalChaos

08-17-2016, 07:15 PM

Ah, I'm from Michigan and Illinois, both of which have castle doctrine that justify use of deadly force (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine). In most states, the mere presence of the intruder in the home is enough to assume fear and danger (see California's castle doctrine).

Here is Delaware's castle doctrine (where Biden is from) (http://www.gunlaws101.com/state/law/delaware/castle-doctrine).

Shooting a shotgun into the air in a rural area to thwart an invasion is probably not going to get many cops to do anything. You aren't aiming at anyone. Fireworks are a bigger danger.

(Biden is a lawyer, and a gun owner.)

WaPo dug up some specific laws that apply to where Biden lives, if you are curious: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-nras-claim-that-joe-bidens-gun-advice-is-illegal/2013/02/25/854b8ca2-7df3-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_blog.html

Yea, we do have castle doctrine out here in CA, but the anti-gun crowd has made it so that guns are only tools of death and can only be used to kill. A lot of self defense classes out here tell you to NEVER pull a gun out unless you are ready to instantly shoot the person. Brandishing to scare, warning shots, etc are all huge legal risks because they demonstrate that you didn't feel the situation warranted lethal force, and thus you were not justified in pulling out a lethal weapon. Of course, this all comes down to the subjective nature of a jury and things like brandishing will be tolerated much more than a warning shot, for instance, and all the other aspects of the situation. Even if you were in danger but the perp then decides to run away... but then you shot the perp in the back (while perp is still in your home), you'd be pretty screwed in CA even with castle doctrine.

allegro

08-17-2016, 07:26 PM

WaPo dug up some specific laws that apply to where Biden lives, if you are curious: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-nras-claim-that-joe-bidens-gun-advice-is-illegal/2013/02/25/854b8ca2-7df3-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_blog.html

Yea, we do have castle doctrine out here in CA, but the anti-gun crowd has made it so that guns are only tools of death and can only be used to kill. A lot of self defense classes out here tell you to NEVER pull a gun out unless you are ready to instantly shoot the person. Brandishing to scare, warning shots, etc are all huge legal risks because they demonstrate that you didn't feel the situation warranted lethal force, and thus you were not justified in pulling out a lethal weapon. Of course, this all comes down to the subjective nature of a jury and things like brandishing will be tolerated much more than a warning shot, for instance, and all the other aspects of the situation. Even if you were in danger but the perp then decides to run away... but then you shot the perp in the back (while perp is still in your home), you'd be pretty screwed in CA even with castle doctrine.
Nah, it will all come down to case law and enough of it has to occur that even that will change. See, the CRIMINAL has to file charges against you for being "scared" that you pulled out a gun but didn't do anything; meanwhile, you still have charges against the criminal for about 8 things that the criminal did. So at that point, the cops and then the prosecuting attorney are going to weigh out who did the worst thing; and judges are more likely to throw out cases where people were genuinely scared but didn't want to just kill somebody yet want to show "use of force" in their own defense, and good luck getting a cop to even file charges. I already told you the story of my half-brother using his gun to hold a guy who had entered into his HOUSE and the perp was whining "you can't do that" to my half-brother even though the guy broke through the fucking front door window at 2 am and was standing inside my half-brother's house and then my half-brother was holding a loaded gun to the asshole's head while my half-brother's g/f called 911, and the cops showed up and my bro threw the gun into the bushes fearing he'd get into trouble, but the cops GAVE MY BRO HIS GUN BACK, arrested the thug, and told my half-brother "have an nice night." Far less paperwork than if my bro had splattered the guy's brains all over the carpet.

Re that article and Joe Biden:

Still, on the face of it, the NRA’s case seems fairly strong. However, State Prosecutor Kathleen Jennings, who heads the Delaware Justice Department’s Criminal Division, disagreed. “In Delaware, a person can legally fire a weapon to protect themselves and others from someone intruding onto her dwelling,” she said in an interview.

Jennings pointed to several parts of the Delaware criminal code relating to defending the use of force (including the 11 Del. Code 466 cited by the NRA) to back up her statement. In particular, she mentioned:

■“The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting the defendant against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion…. The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.” (11 Del. Code 464)

■The use of force is justified against an intruder unlawfully in your dwelling (home), even if it results in death or injury if “the encounter between the occupant and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the occupant to act instantly; or the occupant reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the occupant or others in the dwelling; or the occupant demanded that the intruder disarm or surrender, and the intruder refused to do so.” (11 Del. Code 469)

Jennings said that Delaware laws allow for a fairly “subjective test” of self-defense, particularly in the case of a woman alone at night who believes she faces imminent danger in her dwelling. “A person is justified in using force if she believes it is necessary for self-protection,” she said, but she added that “clearly you can’t just fire a gun if you are not in a self-protection scenario.”

Jennings would have the final decision on whether to bring a case, so her interpretation of the law has some authority.

Deepvoid

08-17-2016, 07:39 PM

Trump has shuffled his campaign again. Hires Breitbart executive chairman Stephen Bannon as campaign CEO. (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/stephen-bannon-larry-solov-praise-227124)

Breitbart is literally running Trump's campaign now. Some staffers are allegedly gonna jump ship on the campaign as well according to The Hill.
Trump can't really complain about the bias medias when he actually hires the CEO of the biggest right-wing new website.

I can't believe I'm gonna agree with someone on FoxNews but here it is. Right on the money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCbdMFWsVcE

onthewall2983

08-18-2016, 09:05 AM

allegro

08-18-2016, 10:35 AM

Dr. Drew "gravely concerned" over Hilary's health (http://drudgetoday.com/v2/r?n=0&s=2&c=1&pn=Anonymous&u=http://www.infowars.com/dr-drew-gravely-concerned-about-hillary-clintons-health/). Please give this all the facepalms today.
10-4.

Ugh, he's such a dick. No "medical records" have been released; a medical evaluation was released, which was a ONE-PAGE LETTER, and the crap he's going on about happened in 2012 and she's already gotten over that shit. He should lose his medical license.

allegate

08-18-2016, 11:03 AM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/766246213079498752

WTF does that even mean, "Mr. Brexit"?

allegro

08-18-2016, 11:08 AM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/766246213079498752

WTF does that even mean, "Mr. Brexit"?

I dunno, but I'm with Hillary (https://twitter.com/AlexBfromG/status/766254506099212288) on that one.

GulDukat

08-18-2016, 11:42 AM

Why Clinton doesnt have the race locked up:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-clinton-doesnt-have-this-race-locked-up/

Jinsai

08-18-2016, 12:01 PM

But seriously, what the hell is he trying to say with that Mr Brexit comment? Was his Twitter hacked?

GulDukat

08-18-2016, 12:22 PM

But seriously, what the hell is he trying to say with that Mr Brexit comment? Was his Twitter hacked?
The guy is a fruitcake. Who knows what he meant.

This may explain it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/18/trump-gives-himself-new-nickname-mr-brexit/88947110/

Jinsai

08-18-2016, 12:59 PM

I mean, I guess it's his addle-brained way of saying "You know how nobody thought Brexit would pass? I didn't, because I was barely aware of it, and certainly demonstrated that I didn't understand the divisiveness of the issue throughout the UK... but nobody thought it would pass, right? People looked at the polls, tremendous polls, just tremendous, and the polls said that Brexit would fail, tremendously. But guess what? It was tremendous. It passed, mostly thanks to the elderly nationalist vote from xenophobes and racists!

Well, that's how this presidential election is going to be! The polls may be indicating that I'm going to lose tremendously. But just like Brexit, I'm actually going to win because there's a tremendous number of racist cranky xenophobic dumbfucks in this country, and they're going to come out and vote. And just like with Brexit, the world will respond in horror, and the American people will realize what a stupid fucking thing they did, and like Brexit, they'll be clamoring for a do-over vote. They'll be crying, saying 'no, we didn't mean it! We were just angry at Hillary and thought we were sending a legitimate message to Washington about how sad I was that Bernie Sanders didn't win! It was just a joke! Please, NOOOOOOOO!'

But it will be too late folks. Tremendously too late, and soon everyone will be calling me Mr Brexit, while they stare into the void in horror, and silently scream, trying to wake themselves up from this terrible nightmare... but it will be real. Tremendously real. And oh yes, folks, you will know sorrow."

Maybe that was what he meant to say, but the Twitter character limit truncated his message a bit?

allegate

08-18-2016, 01:18 PM

I really didn't want to like your post, it just rings too true.

Jinsai

08-18-2016, 01:37 PM

well, as genuinely worried as I am that he has a legitimate chance at winning the election, it still feels good to see moments like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2Kb7IDmFF4

aggroculture

08-18-2016, 01:51 PM

Yeah, the democrats who think Hillary has this locked up already because "polls" are sorely deluded.
I think it's perfectly possible Trump could win this, it's a long time to November.

allegro

08-18-2016, 02:02 PM

Yeah, the democrats who think Hillary has this locked up already because "polls" are sorely deluded.
I think it's perfectly possible Trump could win this, it's a long time to November.

NOBODY has any election "locked up" until it's over, period.

GulDukat

08-18-2016, 02:14 PM

allegro

08-18-2016, 06:09 PM

This is funny and interesting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-media-business_us_57b5b88ce4b034dc7325d29b?section).

"Trump’s Campaign Is Looking More And More Like An Elaborate Media Launch; If there’s one thing we know about The Donald, it’s that he loves being in the spotlight."

The notion that a presidential candidate would be competing hardest in the waning months of an election for potential subscribers or viewers down the line is unprecedented in American politics. But Trump’s recent actions have suggested to a number of journalists and political operatives that his greatest ambition might not be the White House.

SEE ALSO THIS (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/donald-trump-strategy-cable-network.html).

On Tuesday, left-wing documentarian Michael Moore wrote that he “knows for a fact” that Trump never wanted to occupy the Oval Office. Instead, Trump launched his presidential bid as a means of increasing the value of his brand, thereby extracting more favorable terms in his negotiations with NBC over the next season of The Apprentice. But the ploy backfired — while, paradoxically, working too well.

Trump’s decision to deride Mexicans as “rapists” and “drug dealers” in his launch speech rendered him toxic to the network — but beloved by GOP primary voters. Soon, Trump had lost a show but gained an unprecedented level of attention and fame. This was tremendous. But also horrible, because it put him in the impossible position of desperately wanting to be the ultimate “winner,” while also desperately not wanting to actually be president.

Elements of Moore’s narrative are backed up by the confession of a former Trump campaign strategist, published by xoJane in March. The story also seems consistent with Vanity Fair’s report that the candidate has been mulling the creation of his own conservative cable-news empire, once the campaign is through. The magazine wrote that “the presumptive Republican nominee is examining the opportunity presented by the ‘audience’ currently supporting him,” and had “discussed the possibility of launching a “mini-media conglomerate.”
So, slip those Trump shoes back on, one last time. Imagine that you launched a presidential campaign to further your showbiz career. After 14 months as a candidate, you’ve realized that you can’t win in November but you can attract an audience of conservative-news consumers who are looking for an alternative to Fox News. How would you spend the last weeks of your campaign?

Perhaps, you would prioritize keeping your prospective audience entertained, above all else. And to do that, you’d make someone with experience in far-right infotainment the chief executive of your campaign. Plus, you might want to seek out an adviser who really knows the cable-news business. Someone like, I don’t know, Roger Ailes?

Let’s dispel with this fiction that Donald Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing.

DigitalChaos

08-18-2016, 06:16 PM

DigitalChaos

08-18-2016, 06:19 PM

Meanwhile, if you live in a major city in the U.S., you may have seen:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/18/anarchists-unveil-naked-donald-trump-statues-in-several-u-s-cities/?tid=sm_fb

http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/18/12538672/nude-donald-trump-statues-union-square-los-angeles-indecline

Yeah, there is one out here in SF in the Castro. Someone put a 3d printed Trump butt plug underneath it.
There is definitely some hypocritical body-shaming shit going on here though.

The group's video is good. I want the track they made for this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7TeTzOgkMs

allegate

08-18-2016, 06:31 PM

The Empreor Has No Clothes is not about body-shaming, it's about blindly following an idiot.

DigitalChaos

08-18-2016, 07:07 PM

The Empreor Has No Clothes is not about body-shaming, it's about blindly following an idiot.

right... an overweight nude statue of a barely visible dick and no balls... titled "the emperor has no balls" ... and who's own promo video contains multiple closeups of his dick... yeah that totally has nothing to do with the form of the body on display. Him being an idiot is totally just conveyed by uh... his posture... yeah, that's what it is!

aggroculture

08-18-2016, 07:20 PM

You've got to be thinking that a Trump win could actually resulting in a better long term result for Dems. Instead of repeating their stupid shit they might have a come-to-jesus moment and pull their heads out of their asses. Gut the neocon bullshit from their party and get on with it.

This is what I believe is called left accelerationism: the idea that it needs to get worse so it can get better. But recent history has shown that this isn't the case: as the right pulls rightward, the left goes rightward too, and this is what has happened in the 90s and into the present: the left gained power with Clinton and Blair by incorporating and offering its own more charismatic brand of Reaganism and Thatcherism. Now the left has gone so far rightward that it is centrist neoliberalism, and there is no genuine left alternative, meanwhile, the right continues to pull rightward. Bernie, and in the UK Corbyn, in Spain Podemos, and in Greece Syriza, have shown there is a hunger for a left edge, but not enough mainstream support to bring it to or keep it in power.
That said, on social issues there is still a considerable difference between dems and repubs.

Frozen Beach

08-18-2016, 10:29 PM

Yeah, there is one out here in SF in the Castro. Someone put a 3d printed Trump butt plug underneath it.
There is definitely some hypocritical body-shaming shit going on here though.

The group's video is good. I want the track they made for this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7TeTzOgkMs
Apparently the guy behind INDECLINE is Ryen McPherson, the scumbag that was behind Bumfights.

DigitalChaos

08-18-2016, 10:42 PM

This is what I believe is called left accelerationism: the idea that it needs to get worse so it can get better. But recent history has shown that this isn't the case: as the right pulls rightward, the left goes rightward too, and this is what has happened in the 90s and into the present: the left gained power with Clinton and Blair by incorporating and offering its own more charismatic brand of Reaganism and Thatcherism. Now the left has gone so far rightward that it is centrist neoliberalism, and there is no genuine left alternative, meanwhile, the right continues to pull rightward. Bernie, and in the UK Corbyn, in Spain Podemos, and in Greece Syriza, have shown there is a hunger for a left edge, but not enough mainstream support to bring it to or keep it in power.
That said, on social issues there is still a considerable difference between dems and repubs.
hrmm... How does recent history show that's not the case? You just outlined how the 90s to present resulted in a slow shift toward the right. There has not been a significant event within the left that would have triggered the "accelerationism" as you term it. It sure seems like we could use one about now as the last few decades haven't been very positive.

And just for clarity, I don't exactly know what left accelerationism is... but I don't think a slow slide toward something worse is going to trigger this. You need a sudden slap in the face. And I don't think that you absolutely NEED this for it to get better, but it certainly seems like a viable option.

allegro

08-18-2016, 10:50 PM

DigitalChaos We kinda had that slap with Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft which led to a Dem-controlled Congress and a Dem President for 2 terms. Is that what you mean?

Technically, we've been shifting to the right since the end of the Nixon administration (the "last liberal President" according to Chomsky (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/21/noam-chomsky-richard-nixon_n_4832847.html), and Chomsky says that many of Nixon's programs are now being dismantled or are under attack).

The only way that this country can truly shift left is for the right to shift left, as did Eisenhower, Nixon, etc. Also, I believe that Libertarians with liberal social views gaining more control of government may shift things to the left.

I agree about the Trump sculpture body-shaming thing.

Jinsai

08-19-2016, 01:56 AM

I agree about the Trump sculpture body-shaming thing.

It's also an "artistic statement" that reeks of ulterior self-promotion, and a generally vapid message, but hey... do what you gotta do I guess. Congratulations on going viral guys. Mission accomplished.

allegate

08-19-2016, 09:26 AM

right... an overweight nude statue of a barely visible dick and no balls... titled "the emperor has no balls" ... and who's own promo video contains multiple closeups of his dick... yeah that totally has nothing to do with the form of the body on display. Him being an idiot is totally just conveyed by uh... his posture... yeah, that's what it is!Yeah, after thinking about it last night there is certainly some body-shaming going on. No need for the 'artist' to portray any body parts that we may or may not know about. Probably would have been a better message for it to have a Ken doll look instead, something neutral.

Mea culpa.

DigitalChaos

08-19-2016, 11:33 AM

@DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598) We kinda had that slap with Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft which led to a Dem-controlled Congress and a Dem President for 2 terms. Is that what you mean?

That could be a minor example but it seems more like the natural pendulum shift. I'm pretty sure most Dems would consider Trump a much bigger slap.

The only way that this country can truly shift left is for the right to shift left, as did Eisenhower, Nixon, etc. Also, I believe that Libertarians with liberal social views gaining more control of government may shift things to the left.

Sure. But how did the libertarians start gaining so much ground? The Romney loss was, hilariously, this super surprising loss for the GOP who was sure he had it in the bag (sound a bit like Dems right now?). When considering that they also lost with McCain/Palin... they realized they needed to make some serious changes and the libertarian forces that started pushing during the 2008 election started gaining even more traction. Granted, the whole GOP is still being fractured and trying to figure out wtf it wants to be, and that's why you have Trump right now. But the point is that it has seen some large change due to large failures combined with the timing of a libertarian push.

THAT is what I would love to see the Dems do. The Bernie movement is similar to the Ron Paul movement in the 08 elections, except Bernie had a much higher chance of becoming the chosen party candidate than Ron Paul did. That tells me they have a much stronger chance of changing the party, doing it quite rapidly, and doing it with less of the "aaaaaand now we have Trump!" type situations. A lot of that is going to be lost under another 4-8 years of Dem presidency. Sure, you'll still have the dedicated ones working at the local level... but NOTHING mobilizes Dems more than a Republican.

allegro

08-19-2016, 11:47 AM

That could be a minor example but it seems more like the natural pendulum shift. I'm pretty sure most Dems would consider Trump a much bigger slap.
Nah, trillions of dollars and tons of lives lost in a useless war is a pretty big fucking motivation to get rid of Republicans in charge.

But then we eventually ended up with a Republican Congress after people were pissed off about the ACA. It goes back-and-forth as to whom is doing the slapping. Nothing mobilizes Republicans more than Democrats.

allegate

08-19-2016, 04:45 PM

Teen Trump supporter booted from campaign rally ‘for having dark skin’ (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/teen-trump-supporter-booted-from-campaign-rally-for-having-dark-skin/)

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/iauz7q/picture96648347/ALTERNATES/FREE_1140/TRUMP_CHARLOTTE_0819_23

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/19/politics/indian-man-ejected-trump-rally/

DigitalChaos

08-19-2016, 06:36 PM

^ I can see an honest mistake if he truly does look like a repeat antagonizer, but my god his security sucks if they don't think to heavily vet that to prevent this exact situation.

The kid is now voting Libertarian :D http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/19/trump-loving-indian-teenager-kicked-out

Exocet

08-19-2016, 11:56 PM

I still think there is a huge chance he will win...his unconventional style has touched people in a way unlike any other presidential candidate
Its like this sort of brewing powder keg that is working in Trumps direction.
i cant beleive people still trust polls

He calls himself Mr Brexit because EVERY SINGLE fucking poll got it seriously wrong.

Mantra

08-20-2016, 03:29 PM

Pretty funny how that stupid kid is happy to support a politician who openly advocates discrimination against Muslims, immigrants, etc, but when that same discrimination is directed towards him, he acts all offended and upset.

"I thought Trump was for all people."

Really kid? That's honestly what you thought?

DigitalChaos

08-20-2016, 03:39 PM

Well, have you looked at any of the rebuttals to the claims that he is being discriminatory?

It's usually the left saying "Trump said all Mexicans are criminals" and the trump supporters saying "no, he said he wants to take a look at and tighten Mexican immigration because criminals are coming through that pathway"

implanted_microchip

08-20-2016, 03:51 PM

When you court racists, don't disavow endorsements from white supremacists groups, repeatedly retweet things from racist accounts and have a guy from Breitbart on your campaign can you really claim you're not, bare minimum, a racial opportunist? Like, come the fuck on.

DigitalChaos

08-20-2016, 03:59 PM

So the largest evidence of racism is that of association? Shit is weak!

Khrz

08-20-2016, 05:50 PM

Those are strong and steady associations. Past a certain threshold you can't call that a coincidence anymore.

implanted_microchip

08-20-2016, 05:50 PM

When you talk about wanting to ban all Muslims (and whether he's rescinded on that or not, he said it non-goddamn-stop for a long while), killing the families of terrorists, telling people all of their jobs would return if we just cut ourselves off of foreign trade and got rid of those pesky illegals, court a large base of racists and have to single out black people in crowds by saying "Look at my African-American over there!" because most of your crowds are resoundingly white, yeah, I can say it's safe to feel some racial overtones to the whole thing. Your head doesn't have to be out a car window screaming racial slurs at black people on the street to make you a racist, or, bare minimum, someone willing to tolerate it in order to gain favor for yourself.

You know full fucking well what I'm talking about and you're dancing around the subject, technically correct, "I need to prove that you 'technically' don't have him on record calling people the N word" bullshit is just infuriating to deal with. It's talking to a brick fucking wall.

If I spent a lot of time in crack dens, hung out with crack dealers, pretty much just had friends addicted to crack and regularly dodged questions when asked if I thought crack was bad for people, I don't think I'd be able to blame anybody for thinking that I might do crack, or at least not have any issues with it.

Let's just ignore him saying things like "I have a great relationship with the blacks!" or dismissing any points the Khan family made by insinuating that any woman who is a Muslim must be being oppressed because she didn't give a speech because she gets too emotional even seeing photos of her dead kid. Oh, and remember when he said a judge couldn't preside over a case because "he's a Mexican" as if anyone of Hispanic descent should have reason to hate him? Did you forget that? Clearly there's no reason to feel that, maybe, just a little, to some degree, the guy may have some problems with minorities.

Edit: Oh, hey, here's a tidy little article with some highly sketchy shit, I'd love to see this how this could get filtered through that bizarro Libertarian noncommittal bullshit machine

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83

Swykk

08-20-2016, 06:48 PM

"Look at my African American!"

"MY" African American. That's the best part. It's both passive AND overt somehow. It's another level.

implanted_microchip

08-20-2016, 06:56 PM

"Look at my African American!"

"MY" African American. That's the best part. It's both passive AND overt somehow. It's another level.

I almost gave myself a hernia laughing so hard when it turned out that guy wasn't even a supporter

allegro

08-20-2016, 08:15 PM

I'm with DigitalChaos, here: I don't think Trump is racist, either. I think this is all a show to APPEAL TO the racists so he can get something from them. The dumb "look at my African American" comment was just his dumb sense of humor, and he knows it appeals to the base he's trying to profit from. This is ultimately a profit source and marketing endeavor for him. He knows his base LOVES it when he's not PC, and it was ironic and funny. His calling Warren "Pocahontas" ... Come on, G and I died laughing every time he did it, and it was stupid but the guy blurts shit and gives zero fucks, I'll give him that.

What he said about Mrs Khan not being able to speak? Come on, most of us have considered Islam a sexist religion that makes women shut up and eat last and cover themselves, etc. He says shit that others are thinking but are afraid to say, that's his draw. Unfortunately, he's also attracted white supremacists and nut jobs. And he doesn't get that.

implanted_microchip

08-20-2016, 08:42 PM

I'm with @DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598), here: I don't think Trump is racist, either. I think this is all a show to APPEAL TO the racists so he can get something from them. The dumb "look at my African American" comment was just his dumb sense of humor, and he knows it appeals to the base he's trying to profit from. This is ultimately a profit source and marketing endeavor for him. He knows his base LOVES it when he's not PC, and it was ironic and funny. His calling Warren "Pocahontas" ... Come on, G and I died laughing every time he did it, and it was stupid but the guy blurts shit and gives zero fucks, I'll give him that.

What he said about Mrs Khan not being able to speak? Come on, most of us have considered Islam a sexist religion that makes women shut up and eat last and cover themselves, etc. He says shit that others are thinking but are afraid to say, that's his draw. Unfortunately, he's also attracted white supremacists and nut jobs. And he doesn't get that.

I consider him a racial opportunist which I regard as worse than just out and out racist because it's not ignorance, it's apathy and selfishness. To behave as if racism can't be brought up in criticizing his movement and campaign is ridiculous.

aggroculture

08-20-2016, 09:15 PM

allegro

08-20-2016, 10:27 PM

Nah, @allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76), you are way too soft on Trump, you think he's some lovable goofball who, and I'm paraphrasing what you said a few months ago "was born in another era and didn't get the memo about political correctness".

Racist is as racist does. I couldn't possibly care what Trump feels in his heart of hearts. His words have the effect of stoking up racial hatred, of normalizing and justifying racist thoughts and actions; like those guys in Boston who beat up a hispanic homeless guy a year ago, invoked Trump, and Trump refused to condemn them, saying his supporters are very "passionate". Eh, fuck that. His Mexicans are "rapists" comments propelled him into the race, and imo he figured, hey this works, and it's been racist comments all the way since then. And it's bullshit to give that a pass. There's too much violence rained down on minorities and poc in this country to say hey it's no big deal when the presidential candidate is seeking to worsen rather than improve the situation for his own personal gain.
No, I totally AGREE that he can cause damage and set civil rights progress back about 100 years and that he has to be stopped, he is by no means "harmless" for that very reason. While it is true that Obama has deported tons of illegal criminals, Trump is using these few cases as a way to use people's prejudices for his own promotion thereby perpetuating and growing these stereotypes. He did not create them, but he knows that a few recent actual cases existed that fed upon fear and he used it to grow his own popularity. What he has unearthed is horrifying: a shit ton of stupid, hating people.

kleiner352, he is absolutely a racial oppurtunist; he sees it as a way to make him more popular and more money, but he looks down on those people. Which makes it all even worse. He's the rich upper class, they're the low life redneck racists who will buy whatever he sells. You don't see any of those supporters at his golf clubs or hotels, etc. They aren't in the same class as him. I really think there is some genuine substance to these rumors that he is using this Presidential run to start his own cable news network where he is the star and he calls all the shots and he's already found his audience (14 million racist voters).

It's true that it's probably worse that Trump just wants to play piper to these people without them knowing it, and without him even caring about it, vs. some truly racist jackass like David Duke who at least really is a racist; Trump is just the Wizard of Oz. Maybe that's exactly what they deserve.

I really do think that Trump is naive as to the level of truly racist assholes he is courting; he doesn't want to believe he's attracting the KKK but he is.

Jinsai

08-20-2016, 11:25 PM

implanted_microchip

08-21-2016, 12:00 AM

on some level, I'm not completely sure what's worse... being an overt racist, or being a calculated megaphone for racism, even though you personally don't share those racist beliefs or even possibly detest the sentiment, you still do it for methodical reasons. The latter feels much more "evil puppet master," and the "evil" bit there trumps the ignorance it's manipulating.
Racists and bigots often are closed-minded, misguided and ignorant. These things are capable of being fixed and historically we've been able to develop past lots of issues because of that. The Charleston shooter mentioned almost changing his mind because of how nice the people in the church he killed were, as if he'd never even met black people before. Maybe if he'd been more exposed to African American communities throughout his life, that would have never happened.

But courting, manipulating and using racism and bigotry for your own gain, even though you know better? That's a choice to be amoral or evil. He appoints a campaign manager famously bigoted against LGBT people, picks a VP who is famously bigoted against LGBT people, and then I deal with these weirdo apologists claiming I'm safe as a bisexual male because "Trump himself doesn't care."

That exactly it: he doesn't care.

He doesn't care about anyone who isn't him. So if supporting people who hate people like me or hate minorities, then he'll do so. He'll give them power, sure. And that hurts people. He'll give bigotry and racism a hardcore foothold in Washington through his cabinet and that's unallowable. It's evil. He does not care at all about what happens to people if it doesn't benefit him. And if people being hurt or discriminated against benefits him? Then fuck it, sign him up! He'll gladly fan the flames of racial tensions and religious intolerance to help himself and he should fucking know better. There is no excuse. There is no fixing that. You can't educate that out of him.

DigitalChaos

08-21-2016, 03:45 AM

Khrz

08-21-2016, 07:16 AM

Man yeah, the guy's been so progressive when it comes to POC and foreign cultures, everyone's been so blind, so unfair about him, my heart cries.

elevenism

08-21-2016, 09:40 AM

Yeah, trump loves his racists like he just can't get enough of his "uneducated people."
He knows what fucking time it is.

allegro

08-21-2016, 09:51 AM

Yeah, it's time to create "Trump News."

He's pissed that Mike Bloomberg is shitloads richer than him (pssssst, not from news).

Jinsai

08-21-2016, 11:08 AM

here is the latest instances of "Trump is racist" in the left media.

Trump Says African-Americans Have ‘No Education, No Anything’
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-says-african-americans-have-no-education-no-anything-2aa5680576e1%23.l9mgbkqrr

The reality is that Trump points out institutional racism. INSTITUTIONAL FUCKING RACISM. ... and people are using it against him to make him seem racist.

Ok, let's see Trump call it what is FUCKING IS then. I want to hear him call out "INSTITUTIONAL RACISM." Let's hear him say the words "institutional racism." I want to hear him offer solutions to institutional racism. Let's hear Trump start to directly address affirmative action in a positive light, talk about the incarceration rate. Refer to actual fucking statistics. Let's hear him support Black Lives Matter.

Why does anyone actually try to defend this motherfucker? Even given the benefit of the doubt, it's easy to misunderstand a child when they're talking about grown-up issues. If this is Trump's way of addressing the issue, that should be just as alarming. It seems really easy to misunderstand what he's saying and to take offense, and that's not the kind of mouthpiece this country needs.

telee.kom

08-21-2016, 12:10 PM

Maybe it's not as much about defending Trump as it is about terrible news reporting and bias in media in general. Left wing media are corrupted and biased just the same as right wing media and this only shows how much you just can't trust any news outlet without fact checking every god damn sentence anyone makes.

DigitalChaos

08-21-2016, 12:33 PM

allegro

08-21-2016, 12:53 PM

DigitalChaos, you provided a bad link up there

Trump has tried saying that there is institutionalized racism but he's not the most eloquent dude in the world (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/13/donald-trump-can-relate-to-black-americans-because-the-system-is-rigged-against-him-too/). The closest he has said to this is that the "system is rigged against African Americans." Because that's how he says everything: system. rigged.

DigitalChaos

08-21-2016, 01:11 PM

Weird. It was working.
Here is a functioning one https://thinkprogress.org/trump-says-african-americans-have-no-education-no-anything-2aa5680576e1

And I'm honestly not sure if people are being intentionally dense just to hate on Trump, or if they legitimately can't understand his very simple way of talking. If the latter, the "over educated elitism" might be a legitimate critique. Trump speaks the way a huge portion of this country speaks.

Dra508

08-21-2016, 01:19 PM

Trump is classiest northeast power elite "some of my best friends are black". He has no clue.

Anyway, today this gives me more agita: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html

Debt is good yeah yeah yeah. What freaks me out more is how, if elected, he plans on blind trusting his businesses. It's nearly impossible. Like Ivanka and company could keep those conversations from happening.

My opinion is Trump would get bored as president. And we know what boredom creates.....

Swykk

08-21-2016, 01:20 PM

It doesn't make it a good thing, DigitalChaos. A huge portion of this country are hateful racist morons. Let's stop giving the guy that's appealing to that lowest common denominator a fucking pass.

telee.kom

08-21-2016, 01:20 PM

Of course people just want to hate Trump whatever he says, these excuses like "he didn't say exactly the words institutionalized racism" are just pathetic.

Jinsai

08-21-2016, 01:21 PM

Hahaha. Yeah....

"Guuuuuys. Trump talks about issues I agree with but he doesn't use the same words I do when doing it! So racist!"

Not only does that make the calls of racism look ridiculous. Not only is it a continual situation of crying wolf and people aren't listening anymore. But now you sound like the petulant overeducated elitist that Trump is seen as the antidote to.

I'm saying that eloquence and the ability to clearly impart what you're saying is important for a leader who is, let's face it, de facto at least 50% a mouthpiece for policy and international discourse. If you're trying to appeal to people with a gesture offering solidarity for the downtrodden, and instead somehow come across sounding like you're saying "fuck the downtrodden" to many of the people you're trying to appeal to, you're shitty at that part of the job.

Let's not even get into how this could play out on an international scale when we're dealing with language barriers and potential mistranslation. I'm not addressing the sincerity of what Trump is saying, but his ability to clearly impart the message, which is apparently awful. Why would I bother delving into the sincerity of Trump's desperate appeal to minorities? I believe it's clear that I think he's full of shit.