[RESULTS ARE FINAL] 2016 Election for President of the United States | Donald Trump Victory

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I'm really confused by this. Would I have preferred Paul Ryan over Trump? Yeah. Would I have preferred Putin over Trump. Yup. But those things can't or wont happen, so I might as well support the candidate that lines up with me 70% instead of being angry the person who agrees with me 80% didn't make it.

 

I'm not complaining that the other side is divided, but it still confuses me why you are resisting the person with a 95% chance of getting the nomination.

 

Well keep fighting I guess, I win at the end of the day

My dislike for Trump and Hilary are basically equal.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Oh, that's different. KK thanks for clarifying  

If it cheers you up, trump is lagging a little behind in virginia still and it seems like his upward momentum in California dropped with his drought comment (as true as it was)

[Shalltear Bloodfallen]

I'm really confused by this. Would I have preferred Paul Ryan over Trump? Yeah. Would I have preferred Putin over Trump. Yup. But those things can't or wont happen, so I might as well support the candidate that lines up with me 70% instead of being angry the person who agrees with me 80% didn't make it.

 

Flawed comparison. Because this isnt a Clinton lines up with them less then Sanders.

The election has been actively tampered with to make sure Sanders lost.

 

It's as if you went to vote Paul Ryan, but for some reason, your vote is registered as Ted Cruz.

Or you werent able to vote at all because of arbitrary restrictions on the system

 

(The very last part is a personal opinion, as a non-american looking in and being utterly confused about why on earth your system is this needlessly complex and easy to manipulate)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Again, I'm really not seeing it...where exactly do you think Sanders got "cheated" cause even Mrs. Sanders came on national television and said that the DNC had treated Sanders fairly. Super Delegates are toxic, I'll give you that, and Nevada has some foul play. And I'll even say NY is being overly harsh in it's registration time. But none of those can really make up for the lead Hillary has.

 

Edit:

 

Apperently Cruz is going to fight Trump on the three abortion exceptions. Just when I thought we had a seemingly decent policy

[Aerion Brightflame]

Media bias is another one. Because mainstream media was heavily biased against him. And it's not that the things against Sanders cost him the nomination, it's that they happened in the first place. Electoral fraud at any level causing any amount of impact should be stamped out because it defeats the point of a democratic system. It is not about the results, it's about the events.

 

It's a similar case as to why people aren't falling in line behind Hilary - Because political viewpoints are complex, and Hilary being the nominee does not mean she gets the support of the base who voted for Sanders. Because politics is not about making sure your side wins, it's about serving the people. One of the biggest issues with having a two party system like the US does is not only does a massive amount of the political spectrum go unrepresented, but it turns it into a case of winning and losing. 

 

If people voted Sanders, and don't feel that Hilary best represents there views, there should be no obligation for them to fall in line. Your system, being both first party and FPTP means that the aspect of politics about getting your views represented gets severely underdone in your political system. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I always saw it as get as much of your views inacted as possible. And splits happen if things get too bad

 

Also, I only really care about the end result, so that might be our disconnect

[Aerion Brightflame]

Ideally you should get some level of representation that alligns with the candidate who is closest to your viewpoints. The problem with FPTP, the system we share with the US, is that that doesn't happen. When one side wins in a FPTP election, the actuality is most people probably lost. Take like red states and blue states - If you have the opposite viewpoint, you never actually get represented under that system. Your vote was not in the majority for your district or whatever, and so you have had no say on what happens effectively. 

 

Take the results from the last general election in the UK;

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015

 

The conservatives took a majority government with a 36.9% of the vote with 330 out of 650 seats. And despite having 12.7% of the Vote, UKIP only got 1 MP. They had less MP's than 7 other parties that had a smaller share of the vote than they did, often by 10% or more. Now you can dislike the party as much as you want but you have to accept that this is not a fair system.

 

It's why proportional representation across a huge range of political parties should in my mind be the system by which governments are elected, because it is the most fair way of representing the people. It works a little less well on a small scale, but nationally it's a great approach. Even if this means 'Majorities' almost never happen, that's actually a good thing. Because compromise in politics is a good thing because it means that a piece of legislature represents the views of more people. 

 

The process really does matter more than the results, because only by caring about the process can you truly create a system that represents the most people. And that's what politics, for better or for worse, should be about. Representing and managing the will of the people. 

[cr47t]

Media bias is another one. Because mainstream media was heavily biased against him. And it's not that the things against Sanders cost him the nomination, it's that they happened in the first place. Electoral fraud at any level causing any amount of impact should be stamped out because it defeats the point of a democratic system. It is not about the results, it's about the events.

 

It's a similar case as to why people aren't falling in line behind Hilary - Because political viewpoints are complex, and Hilary being the nominee does not mean she gets the support of the base who voted for Sanders. Because politics is not about making sure your side wins, it's about serving the people. One of the biggest issues with having a two party system like the US does is not only does a massive amount of the political spectrum go unrepresented, but it turns it into a case of winning and losing. 

 

If people voted Sanders, and don't feel that Hilary best represents there views, there should be no obligation for them to fall in line. Your system, being both first party and FPTP means that the aspect of politics about getting your views represented gets severely underdone in your political system. 

I couldn't have said it better than myself. Thanks Tom <3

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Clinton Losing ground vs Trump in NH, NJ, and Cali. She's tied in NH, leading by 4 in NJ, and by 8 in Cali

[cr47t]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/30/politics/adam-kinzinger-no-path-third-party-run/

 

Why don't the #NeverTrump guys rally around Gary Johnson? He seems the most aligned to them out of the already existing third-party candidates.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Hillary is behind Trump in Orego?

 

Striker you have work to do lol

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Hillary is behind Trump in Orego?

 

Striker you have work to do lol

 

Like I said, don't really care about Clinton at this point. Third party in Presidential Election and I'll go from there for the other races.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Like I said, don't really care about Clinton at this point. Third party in Presidential Election and I'll go from there for the other races.

Maybe the Bernie bros will find a home with the libertarians?

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Maybe the Bernie bros will find a home with the libertarians?

 

More likely the Green Party tbh. The Republican crossovers may go that route, maybe.

[Phantom Roxas]

As a """""Bernie Bro""""", I'm looking towards supporting Jill Stein, since she seems to be presented as the alternative to Bernie. Better her than Hillary, at least.

[Dad]

As as """""Bernie Bro""""", I'm looking towards supporting Jill Stein, since she seems to be presented as the alternative to Bernie. Better her than Hillary, at least.

 

Glad to see you're okay.  Had no idea what school you went to.  Don't scare me Pat.  T_T

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Speaking of which, not entirely clear what Trump and Sander's gun policies are

[Aerion Brightflame]

As far as I know Sanders are in a very brief form:

Gun Control: Gun control legislation should ultimately fall on individual states, with the exception of instant background checks to prevent firearms from finding their way into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and a federal ban on assault weapons.

Manufacturer Liability: Gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the misuse of their products, just as any other industry isn’t held accountable for how end-consumers use their products.

 

He is also in favour of background checks at gun shows. Which is something I believe even the NRA has been in favour of. 

 

So you know, fairly sane gun policies which most would agree too. 

 

As for Trump? Who knows. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

a federal ban on assault weapons

And there's the deal breaker unfortunately :/

[Aerion Brightflame]

And there's the deal breaker unfortunately :/

 

Okay I'll bite

 

Why is this not an acceptable thing to have amongst your policies?

 

This is not the only policy he is making to cut down on mass shootings. It is not the only gun policy he is making. It is not what he places all of the blame for mass shootings on. 

 

Why is it wrong for a candidate to propose banning what is otherwise military grade equipment from the general populaces hands? 

 

Why is it a deal breaker? 

 

Because even if I accept gun ownership is fine in the US when responsible, what possible, sane usage does one have for an assault weapon over a pistol for self defence? Or a rifle for hunting? What useful niche does owning an assault weapon serve that means the general populace should have access to it? 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Okay I'll bite

 

Why is this not an acceptable thing to have amongst your policies?

 

This is not the only policy he is making to cut down on mass shootings. It is not the only gun policy he is making. It is not what he places all of the blame for mass shootings on. 

 

Why is it wrong for a candidate to propose banning what is otherwise military grade equipment from the general populaces hands? 

 

Why is it a deal breaker? 

 

Because even if I accept gun ownership is fine in the US when responsible, what possible, sane usage does one have for an assault weapon over a pistol for self defence? Or a rifle for hunting? What useful niche does owning an assault weapon serve that means the general populace should have access to it? 

For one, the slippery slope, people demanding a ban on Assault Weapons (this terms actually means jack sheet and was created by the media. I will refer to it as AWS from now on however) also want a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, most of which are designed for self-defense handguns. Giving them a foot in the door for AWS has already had had repercussions.

 

I'll give you a couple more of reason why going after Semi-Automatics (SAFs) (these constitute the vast majority of AWS, the others are usually high powered shotguns)  is retard left-wing propaganda designed to fill the void of actual advancements

 

They're demonized:

 

Semi-automatic firearms are not military grade. Ignorant people say that semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are “military-grade” and other triggering names. Or that these guns are designed for war field duty

 

This is false.

 

The military uses fully-automatic rifles, which are regulated as machine guns by the National Firearms Act of 1934. We Gun owners by large do NOT want these fully-automatic rifles.

 

The difference is that a fully-automatic firearm can fire repeatedly and quickly as long as you hold down the trigger, but a semi-automatic fires only once when you pull the trigger, and has to be re-"triggered" after the a select number of bullets are used

 

Misleading Info:

 

SAFs are not stronger than other guns. Scapegoaters call AWS high-powered.

 

This is again ignorance

 

A firearm’s strength is based on the caliber of its ammunition. Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns use ammunition very similar to those of revolvers.

 

Are revolvers Assault Weapons too now?

 

Notably, AW's ammunition tend to be less powerful than the ammunition used by rifles used to hunt larger game.

 

This is something any gun owner would know. But not something a lying politician or the media would care to inform.

 

Power:

 

Criminals could switch to more powerful guns (point one explains "power" in reality as opposed to what people think it means).

 

In response to the 1994 ban limiting new magazines to 10 rounds, many gun owners switched to handguns which, instead of holding between 13-17 rounds of small-caliber handgun ammunition, held exactly 10 rounds of large-caliber handgun ammunition. The desired result am I right?

 

As with the sub-compact 10-round models mentioned above, such handguns are now commonplace. Banning "Assault Weapons" really didn't help much of anything and more powerful guns were always legal

 

False Correlation

 

As the numbers of AWS have risen to to record levels, violent crime has been cut in half. Not saying correlation = causation (I'm not in the everyone having guns = safety camp). I'm just saying you can't spin negative correlation to positive causation.

 

The US's violent crime rate peaked in 1991. However from there onward, it has decreased by about half, to a 42-year low, including a 52% drop in the nation’s murder rate, a half-century record

 

Meanwhile, the number of the most popular firearm that gun control supporters call an AW (AR-15 rifle) has risen by over 4.5 million. The number of all semi-automatic firearms has risen by over 50 million, and the total number of privately-owned firearms has risen by over 130 million.

 

Correlation does not imply causation, but causation does imply correlation. You can't have something be a cause or even a contributed for violence if they don't correlate. Which brings us to the next hole in the liberal bullshit

 

Minor Influence of Bans:

 

AWS are only used in a small percentage of firearm-related violent crime.

 

The study that Congress required of the federal AWS Ban of 1994-2004 concluded that “the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban.

 

And this has not changed since that travesty of a law was allowed to expire. 

 

A follow-up study found “gunshot injury incidents involving pistols (which use magazines) were less likely to produce a death than were those involving revolvers” (which don’t use magazines), and “the average number of wounds for pistol victims was actually lower than that for revolver victims.”

 

Police reports and felon surveys have found that AWS are used in only 1%-2% of violent crimes.

 

AWS are not the damn problem, and this passion should be focused elsewhere

 

As I said before, the super-majority of firearms that gun control supporters call AWS are rifles.

 

But during the most recent five years of data, there were nine times as many murders with blunt objects, knives, and  hands, feet, etc. (Think Strangling) as with rifles of any type.

 

Shall we ban feet and arms too? I mean human life is important right, and if even the damage of AWS is too much, something MUST be done.

 

No Impact:

 

AWS bans have not reduced crime.

 

After its 1989 ban, California’s murder rate went up every year for five years, 26% total.

 

California banned even more guns in January 2000 (and thereafter imposed a variety of other gun control restrictions) and murder has since averaged 12% higher than the national rate.

 

 

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says it can “in no way vouch for the validity” of Brady Campaign’s claim, one parroted by gun demonifier, Diane Feinstein, that the federal Assault weapon ban reduced crime. 

 

 

Most guns that are traced have not been used to commit violent crimes, and most guns used to commit violent crimes are never traced.

 

Even the anti-gun group, Violence Policy Center, has said “You can’t argue with a straight face that the ban has been effective”

 

The FBI does not list guns or gun control as a crime factor and California doesn’t credit its assault weapon ban for the state’s recent decrease in crime.

 

Studies for the CDC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Library of Congress have found no evidence that gun control reduces crime.

 

 

Concealment:

 

Criminals could switch to more concealable guns.

 

When the federal “large” magazine ban of 1994-2004 was imposed, limiting the capacity of new magazines to 10 rounds, many gun owners switched from full-size handguns holding between 13-17 rounds, to smaller models holding only 10 rounds.

 

The irony here is that gun control supporters most wanted to see banned from the 1970s these smaller models banned until they found a new target  in the AWS were compact handguns. 

 

Crime:

 

Criminals could easily get around a limit on newly-manufactured magazines.

 

As noted, Americans already own tens of millions of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. So a ban would also need to have police go door to door confiscating the rounds.

 

What if the manufacture of new such magazines were banned? The cost of old magazines would rise (as it did when the 1994 ban was imposed), but any criminal determined to have them would always be able to get them, including by theft from law-abiding owners.

 

So not only is it economically foolish, it doesn't really fix a damn thing

 

A criminal could carry multiple limited-capacity magazines and use them to reload a firearm quickly.

 

Hell Tech Shooting Official Review concluded that a limit on mag-cap would have done all of jack sheet for that shooting

(Virginia Tech Review Panel, Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech, April 16, 2007, p. 74.)

 

A criminal could also carry multiple guns. A criminal could also resort to a method other than a firearm. A criminal doesn't care about the damn law, banned or not.

 

 

The Law?:

 

 

 

Speaking of the law. The Second Amendment protects the right to semi-automatic firearms and magazines designed for self-defense.

 

In District of Columbia v. Heller, SCOTUS affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for defensive purposes.

 

The court ruled that  “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” and that the amendment guarantees “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”  

 

Heller was the District’s bans on handguns and on having other firearms assembled and loaded for protection within the home.

 

SCOTUS ruled against both, and affirmed “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.

 

Something that seems to be at odds with the rhetoric Laz was throwing at me face this morning

 

Why is it a deal breaker? Cause Sanders, much like Hillary, is trying to destroy my way of life with 0 merits behind doing so. He's jerking off to the media and the fact that he went after AWS shows that just like most politicians (including an esteemed (cause I never criticize him right?) Mr. Trump who once called and then recanted in 2012 for AWS bans)

 

Edit: I really wish you guys wouldn't silent Rep until after I have finished typing my response

 

You know why Gun Control actions like UBC take forever to happen? Cause people spend half their day spouting stuff like this that any gun owner knows to be false and the other half attacking people like me who agree with the gun control people on 90% of the matters

 

SMH

[Dad]

I think the real issue is both the media and the appearance (which I will discuss more of) of "assault" weapons.

 

As some of you can relate, growing up in a rough neighborhood or violent city, the sound of gunfire isn't unusual.  But when those stagnant shots--1.  2.  3.--turn into rapid fire or burst fired shots--12345,12345,12345--it feels much more alarming.  I think everyone is afraid of "assault" weapons because of the rate of fire in which they are capable.  Let me be clear, however.  This both does and does not influence the destructive power of a weapon labeled as an "assault" weapon.

 

What I mean is, rate of fire does effect how soon or how much time it takes for the weapon to do damage.  But the caliber of the bullet compared to something like a .45, it doesn't appear to be as powerful.

 

I don't think people are necessarily afraid of "assault" weapons, as much as they are afraid of the rate of fire that some of these guns can put out.  Tbh, as much as I funk with the hood, I'm not with AKs, 9s, Mac 11s, or any of that sheet.  I don't funk with it.  I respect it and I know what it's capable of.  But I also know that every gun is capable of putting a man down in one shot, as it is in fifty.  So where do we draw the line?

 

We talk about banning "assault" weapons, but then you would just see more 10s, 11s, .45s, and the like run up the charts.  And that's not to say there shouldn't be more control, but that's also not to say that the rate of fire that these weapons put out isn't overbearing.  People are scared, so naturally they'll want to get rid of them altogether.  But there's gotta be a middle ground somewhere.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

a dozen people could die in moments because of automatic weapons.

a dozen people cannot die in moments when the available weapons have 10 shots or less.

 

Really though there's no point defending them imo. They aren't needed, they don't have a purpose for people to have, and they are more dangerous. You cannot try and convince me they aren't.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

a dozen people could die in moments because of automatic weapons.

a dozen people cannot die in moments when the available weapons have 10 shots or less.

 

Really though there's no point defending them imo. They aren't needed, they don't have a purpose for people to have, and they are more dangerous. You cannot try and convince me they aren't.

What sheet kinda logic is that 

 

More than a dozen people could die in moments if you throw miracle grow in bleach

 

Guess my white shirts need to be dirty cause some lunatic makes a chlorine bomb

 

Like did you not at all read how gun power is based on the bullets...

 

Comments like this are really the reason I'm glad no one person can sway an election >__>

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

What sheet kinda logic is that 

 

More than a dozen people could die in moments if you throw miracle grow in bleach

 

Guess my white shirts need to be dirty cause some lunatic makes a chlorine bomb

 

Like did you not at all read how gun power is based on the bullets...

 

Comments like this are really the reason I'm glad no one person can sway an election >__>

Oh sorry I forgot I could use assault weapons to clean my clothes.

Did you miss the part where I say they have no purpose?

In that. They do no good, only bad, why keep them? (for the public that is)

Your condescending attitude is really hilarious when you're saying such dumb bullshit "arguments" that really are illogical.

 

As for the gun power thing. Seriously? A rapid spray of "weak" bullets cause more harm than a couple "strong" bullets.

 

You kept saying "criminals could switch to" guess what, they still can. With or without the assault weapons.