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

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

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.

Well I'm being condescending now cause

 

1) Not only do "Assault" Weapons not kill as many people as people claim them to do

 

2) They can't, and more deadly weapons exist

 

Go ban revolvers and knives, then come back to Assult weapons and I will stand aside because you're being consistent

 

Cow surely you can see this is a campaign buzz word right?

 

I'm being condescending cause no matter how much I try to explain, all you do plug you ears. 

 

As for uses, I personally don't have an AR-15, but you CAN hunt with it or use it for self-defense. It's less dangerous than a high powered rifle which you would use for hunting, so why not go after the weapon causing fatalities first?

 

I just don't get it

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.

I agree, but the media hyping assault weapons over and over really isn't making that fear go away

[Aerion Brightflame]

I commend the effort you put into that post. It made for good read, was suprisingly well thought out, and makes for a good counter argument. 

 

I still entirely disagree with the idea of any kind of automatic weapon been available to the public, well technically I disagree with any kind of firearm being easily available to the public but I accept that responsible ownership of basic firearms could be permitable under diligent circumstances, because I feel there is simply is not a need to have automatic weaponry outside of the police or the military. For hunting you would use a high calibre rifle, for self defence a pistol is all you really need or really should need because ideally it is the threat of the weapon that acts as defence not the application. Since a weapon that sprays has significantly higher chance of unwanted collateral damage making it unideal for self defence. 

 

So I still don't think that it being on a manefesto is a bad thing. But that's my cultural difference to most of you - Guns are not a thing I will ever think should exist outside of the hands of the military and trained dedicated response units in the Police. 

 

But I will concede the argument here given I can't dismiss the points you raised beyond saying 'Yeah, but you don't actually need automatic weapons for self defence when pistols will do' which is a weak argument.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I'm being condescending cause no matter how much I try to explain, all you do plug you ears. 

 

As for uses, I personally don't have an AR-15, but you CAN hunt with it or use it for self-defense. It's less dangerous than a high powered rifle which you would use for hunting, so why not go after the weapon causing fatalities first?

 

I just don't get it

Hypocrisy thine name is Winter.

 

As for the rest. A high powered rifle is less dangerous simply because of the fact that. Sure, they are more accurate and powerful, but that doesn't matter. Power doesn't beat rate of fire when talking about danger to the public.

[Dad]

Hypocrisy thine name is Winter.

 

As for the rest. A high powered rifle is less dangerous simply because of the fact that. Sure, they are more accurate and powerful, but that doesn't matter. Power doesn't beat rate of fire when talking about danger to the public.

 

At the risk of being super extreme:

 

One bomb can kill more people than an "assault" weapon.  

 

If we're strictly talking guns, maybe a better comparison would be to say (in terms of danger to the public), one AR-15 can do as much damage as an extended clip .45 in less time.  They're both dangers to the public when not being used for self defense.

 

I'm trying to tread lightly.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

At the risk of being super extreme:

 

One bomb can kill more people than an "assault" weapon.  

 

If we're strictly talking guns, maybe a better comparison would be to say (in terms of danger to the public), one AR-15 can do as much damage as an extended clip .45 in less time.  They're both dangers to the public when not being used for self defense.

 

I'm trying to tread lightly.

Bombs are also illegal but it's also much harder to ban all the things that can make bombs. Taking away something that only, in general, causes harm is good.

As for the latter. Yeah. Less time is key. There are many times shooters go down after a few moments. In those few moments the guy with the .45 might get a couple kills, or maybe even none if they have bad aim. Whereas the person with the AR-15 could more easily, even without trying, kill several more.

 

Mostly my issue comes in where the assault weapons or w/e serve no real purpose compared to other things that can kill, while doing harm.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/06/02/paul-ryan-endorses-donald-trump-adviser-intv-nr.cnn

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/02/480476232/paul-ryan-endorses-donald-trump

[Dad]

He finally did the deed, did he?  Took him long enough.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

He finally did the deed, did he?  Took him long enough.

It's like Draco is Paul Ryan

 

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-nuestro-amigo-latino-voters/

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/06/02/can-trump-ride-white-anger-into-the-white-house-a-new-analysis-suggests-its-a-fantasy/

[Aerion Brightflame]

So we were talking about Hilary turning down a debate with Sander's quite recently, and I had a brainwave about it when reading more about her email scandal, :

 

What if the reason she turned down the debate is that now the email scandal has blown up she simply can't be in a position to state anything on the record about it? 

 

Because seriously, the amount of damning information has increased massively in the past 30 days, there's considerable evidence that she broke the espionage act by mentioning the names of classified CIA agents within her emails (That most likely got hacked by the russians and every other government), and she's not given a press conference in 181 days. For those curious that dates back to November last year. 

 

What if the scandal is so damming for her she simply can't be in a position to make any kind of on the record comment on it at all? And you know that even if Sanders doesn't want her to answer it, the actual moderators in the debate would have to get an answer of some form about the emails? She's either evasive, which looks bad, admits her wrongdoing (Which is insane), or she denies it, which is a verifiable lie. She has no possible answer that doesn't do her in right now. 

[cr47t]

So we were talking about Hilary turning down a debate with Sander's quite recently, and I had a brainwave about it when reading more about her email scandal, :

 

What if the reason she turned down the debate is that now the email scandal has blown up she simply can't be in a position to state anything on the record about it? 

 

Because seriously, the amount of damning information has increased massively in the past 30 days, there's considerable evidence that she broke the espionage act by mentioning the names of classified CIA agents within her emails (That most likely got hacked by the russians), and she's not given a press conference in 181 days. For those curious that dates back to November last year. 

 

What if the scandal is so damming for her she simply can't be in a position to make any kind of on the record comment on it at all? And you know that even if Sander's doesn't want her to answer it, the actual moderators in the debate would have to get an answer of some form about the emails? She's either evasive, which looks bad, admits her wrongdoing (Which is insane), or she denies it, which is a verifiable lie. She has no possible answer that doesn't do her in right now. 

...Wow. This makes great sense. You, Tom (or whatever I should call you), are probably my favorite person in this thread. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

...Wow. This makes great sense. You, Tom (or whatever I should call you), are probably my favorite person in this thread. 

Would he still be if he tells Sanders to step down after a hypothetical Cali victory for Hillary on Tuesday?

 

That being said, the Flag Burning and Violence today was pretty sad to see. 

 

Idk who's winning, but America is losing

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

Trump was right afterall

[Dad]

Would he still be if he tells Sanders to step down after a hypothetical Cali victory for Hillary on Tuesday?

 

That being said, the Flag Burning and Violence today was pretty sad to see. 

 

Idk who's winning, but America is losing

 

On both sides, we should not be condoning violence.  All of the candidates should be speaking out about it, because it's a shameful display.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

On both sides, we should not be condoning violence.  All of the candidates should be speaking out about it, because it's a shameful display.

It's not really helping the /liberal/ cause either when you see guys waving the Mexican Flag while burning the American one. And then start throw punching, egging and throw rocks at peaceful Trump people

 

In Sander's Credit he called it out immediately, and for that I have to respect him

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Would he still be if he tells Sanders to step down after a hypothetical Cali victory for Hillary on Tuesday?

What does this even mean and how is it relevant? Don't jump on people just because they like what another person has been saying.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What does this even mean and how is it relevant? Don't jump on people just because they like what another person has been saying.

I'm inquiring if the support is mainly cause of Tom's support for Sanders at the moment or because of Tom's objectivness

 

I'm not jumping on anyone mate, hell the quote wasn't even directed at you so I'm not sure why you're playing Lawyer

 

If you must know, I really do like Tom for his long informed posts (ie look at my profile if you don't believe me), but don't agree with him on basically any policy, and I'm wondering if that's the same in this case. 

 

Seriously, stop going after me, if they want to respond let the do it. This whole advocate thing is getting really old. 

[ihop]

HILLARY BOYS

YES FOR NON EDGLORDA

S

Omg fuckso drunk ill.expaisyer

[Aerion Brightflame]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/03/sanders-condemns-violence-at-trumps-san-jose-rally/

 

Cudos to Sanders for dismissing the violence in San Jose (The usual affair of Protests against Trump Supporters, except a little more violent than usual. I don't think anyone was harmed thankfully), whilst also ripping into Trump in a manner I don't quite expect from him. Would've been nice to see this kind of attitude against Hilary a little more earlier. But hey, everyone gets why he didn't, that was the campaign he tried to run. 

 

Also I know Winter mentioned this earlier but Sander's actual quote makes for great reading. 

 

 

HILLARY BOYS
YES FOR NON EDGLORDA
S
Omg f***so drunk ill.expaisyer

 

If you can sober up enough to explain what EDGLORDA sooner than tomorrow was meant to be that would be wonderful. Because it looks like you were trying to say ineligible, but I can't think of anything in the past few hours that would cause that. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I'm inquiring if the support is mainly cause of Tom's support for Sanders at the moment or because of Tom's objectivness

 

I'm not jumping on anyone mate, hell the quote wasn't even directed at you so I'm not sure why you're playing Lawyer

 

If you must know, I really do like Tom for his long informed posts (ie look at my profile if you don't believe me), but don't agree with him on basically any policy, and I'm wondering if that's the same in this case. 

 

Seriously, stop going after me, if they want to respond let the do it. This whole advocate thing is getting really old. 

I'm only "going after you" because I disagree with almost everything you say. Just so happens we have opposite opinions and thoughts.

Reason I said that was because you have a habit of not so subtly downplaying a person's post (whether intentional or not) by saying things implying they're being hypocritical and such, so I wanted to nip it at the bud (butt?) if that's the case.

If what you say is your intentions, should have said it right away, instead of a vague kinda insulting comment.

Plus it makes little sense as Tom has continuously said that Sanders doesn't have much of a chance to win.

Don't get too worked up about it, it's one person's thoughts. I'm allowed to ask a question and give my point of view, don't try and act like you're under attack when we're on a level playing field in that regard.

 

Bah this has gone far off topic and all those words are at heavy risk of being misinterpreted, but I don't feel comfortable deleting it. -_-

[Aerion Brightflame]

Since people seem to be talking about my viewpoints as if they are important, and I'm bored, here's a clarification:

 

I do think Sander's is by far and away the best candidate for the presidency. In part because he's neither what may soon be the Webster's definition of corruption, nor is he a reality TV star, but also because his policy's somewhat align with where I think politics has to shift. And because I respect the changes he has attempted to instigate. 

 

I also think that the odds of Sander's winning the primary right now would make betting on Leicester at the start of the year seem sane in comparison. If it weren't for the ever present threat of the emails, I would say he has no chance. But as far as I'm concerned that is his only possible avenue to being the nominee in this case. And I get the feeling if Hilary did go down for the emails, we'd get given Biden instead. 

 

However I do not think that Sander's should back down at any point prior to the convention, even if he is mathematically eliminated from the running. Because I think him staying in to the end does far far more to help his ideas than backing out and falling in line behind Hilary. It is good that we have politicians willing to fight for what they stand for to the very end, especially when it's about positive change for the sake of the people, and not for the sake of there wallets. 

 

Also because him staying in is just a big middle finger to Clinton. Because once again - funk that jabroni. It's only a minor part of why I think he should stay in, but it's worth mentioning. 

[Phantom Roxas]

Bah this has gone far off topic and all those words are at heavy risk of being misinterpreted, but I don't feel comfortable deleting it. -_-

You've conducted yourself very well in this thread, so if there's any way your comments could be interpreted differently, I'd say you're fine. You've nothing to worry about.

 

Also because him staying in is just a big middle finger to Clinton. Because once again - funk that jabroni. It's only a minor part of why I think he should stay in, but it's worth mentioning.

THIS. I agree with the rest of your post, but I want to add onto this bit in particular. I still hold onto a hope that Tuesday will position Bernie well enough so that he can at least justify staying around for the convention. No matter how impossible it is for Hillary to lose right now, I want the fight against her to keep going for as long as possible.

[vla1ne]

 

Trump was right afterall

so does nobody want to discuss that? seriously, if that's really a pamphlet from mexico, then i've got to say that is the largest endorsement of trump that mexico could give.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

so does nobody want to discuss that? seriously, if that's really a pamphlet from mexico, then i've got to say that is the largest endorsement of trump that mexico could give.

*shrugs* I was just trying to inform

 

I think what will get him the Oval Office is the recession. He warned about in January while everyone mooed him for it. Clinton is too closely tied to Obama and will sink with him.

 

I think the Mexico thing is very worrying, but it's pretty racist to bring it up /sarcasm

Bah this has gone far off topic and all those words are at heavy risk of being misinterpreted, but I don't feel comfortable deleting it. -_-

By who? Most people won't care if it's about me or Trump. And I have a thick skin. We disagree, but you're cool.

 

That being said, my problem is y'all praise Sanders like he's Jesus reborn. I'm a very hardline Trump supporter, but I criticize him at every turn when he's being a dumbass. I do not see that from and Sanders people as I do with Trump and Clinton people.

 

Tom is one of the few people in this thread that, while bias, is pretty objective about it.

 

You can criticize me about being a bit snarky with pointing out the bias, but it was more sarcastic than insulting.

 

If somone did take offense to my post (which by the reps the replies have been getting, I'd assume so) the. I'm sorry. I just wanted a little introspection

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You've conducted yourself very well in this thread, so if there's any way your comments could be interpreted differently, I'd say you're fine. You've nothing to worry about.

 

 

THIS. I agree with the rest of your post, but I want to add onto this bit in particular. I still hold onto a hope that Tuesday will position Bernie well enough so that he can at least justify staying around for the convention.

How about me? :3 lol

 

He's justified staying in already. The old man for all his fualts did much better than people predicted. He touched a nerve. They nobody can deny. Ignoring him at this point would be toxic for the country

 

Edit:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/282246-nm-governor-hopes-to-meet-with-trump

 

Speaking of trump being a dumbass, this might be a way to undo the NM blunder he pulled

[Dad]

CNN decided to be doggish apparently.  Sumn' about a reporter questioning Trump 23 times and he basically didn't give a straight answer.