2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Ah, yes, the racist card.
What's racist about pointing out that Canada is a more demographically homogenous country than US? They are incredibly diverse in their own way, with multiple different identified ethnics, but you are burying your head in the sands if you don't think being majority white helped with their social harmony.
You have no idea how often I've thought that in relation to your posts since you became "open" to Trumping.you can't be this dense surely.....
I followed your advice and looked at a selection of your posts in the gun control thread. They strike a somewhat different tone from your responses on this page:
This was the response to a response to a post by Silva:
And here's the sensible RD again:
Where you seem to agree that guns themselves may, in fact, be highly dangerous.
was Sandy Hook racially motivated?
most of these mass shootings had nothing to do with race.
Canada's demographic make up is simply different.
Its simply gun laws or the lack of them that is the problem.
that pretty much answers Ubik who is also upset I had a go at Hillary .
You're the one parroting the NRA, bud.
Feel proud.
Feel proud.
pretty logo
Ubik. are you intentionally misunderstanding these discussions or don't you get it?
was just glancing through what you quoting my posts.
more guns..more deaths...yes! so why do you think we have more guns.
The Ubik answer is manufacturers make more guns and sell more guns.
Solution..ban all guns.
Ubik. are you intentionally misunderstanding these discussions or don't you get it?
was just glancing through what you quoting my posts.
more guns..more deaths...yes! so why do you think we have more guns.
The Ubik answer is manufacturers make more guns and sell more guns.
Solution..ban all guns.
Your analysis of why I was considering Trump has nothing to do with his pro-gun stance.
sorry to strike down that thoery.
sorry to strike down that thoery.
back to the Presidential debate.
yes yes...
her vote did not make any difference.
she just cast it on the way to the restrooms.
her vote did not make any difference.
she just cast it on the way to the restrooms.
All i see is how much weight she's gained since then.
tbf she looks quite nice there.
I'm completely lost here. You agree in the post I quoted that gun manufacturers are evil, yet on the previous page you say they aren't. You say in the post I quoted that guns are MADE to at least injure, and if used as designed, kill. On the previous page you say they aren't the problem. That's the disparity I'm picking up on. You saying "it's legislation that's the problem" is ass backwards logic, like saying that murder isn't a problem, it's the lack of legislation on it. No, you use the legislation to remedy the fundamental problem. Which in this case is high powered weaponry able to fire off multiple rounds in quick succession.pretty logo
Ubik. are you intentionally misunderstanding these discussions or don't you get it?
was just glancing through what you quoting my posts.
more guns..more deaths...yes! so why do you think we have more guns.
The Ubik answer is manufacturers make more guns and sell more guns.
Solution..ban all guns.
Never said it had anything to do with his opinions on guns. I was remarking that I noticed an alarming downward trend in your posts at about the same time you said were considering supporting repeated race-baiter Donald Trump. Since you said I was being dense, thought it opportune to bring it up.
But whatever, there's a gun control thread for all this. Just somewhat surprised you'd repeat that particular talking point, particularly after rebuking others for doing similarly.
My posts about gun manufacturers being evil stands. They use the NRA, who in turn bribe congressmen to promote more gun sales.
But to ban guns completely is not sensible. I have explained why I think it is not sensible. You may not accept that explanation. But I cant help that.
The lack of adequate gun laws Is the problem. Yes. If guns are used properly they can kill. Once again why I say guns should be in the hands of people who will use them sensibly. Not just hunters but those people who do need to have guns even it is for self defence. But if you implement proper regulations like background checks, waiting periods and registration, letters from doctors and such. Proper places to lock and keep weapons. These should drastically reduce guns getting into wrong hands.
As for assualt rifles, which is what I think you are talking about, these should be limited to gun ranges for those wanting to shoot them for fun...Personaly I would hope they do not even allow that. But that is me.
Your opinion of my posts going going in a downward trend? that is your opinion and so what...because I'm anti-Hillary? I was once considering voting for her inspite...........but she is showing herself to be a desperate power hungry woman who will say or do anything to gain the Presidency. So I have changed my mind.
It wasn't a coincidence that the 46 year record low of gun deaths happened under Bill Clinton when the economy was going well and racial harmony was better. These mass shootings are just the extreme symptoms of an epidemic that afflicted the US, when the white man who gradually loses his privilege in society increasingly embrace force of arm to reassure himself of his self-worth. Tell me again how many of the mass shooters are poc?
You have a country splitter right down the middle and becoming increasingly more polarized, with tens of millions of low educated working/poor whites who are bitter against society at large but specifically outsider groups like immigrants and those of different faiths. Those fears manifested itself in events like the Charleston shooting, or the marginalized young adult immersed in that gun culture seek release like Aurora or Sandy Hook. Registration and waiting periods will do feck all to address those issues.
The reasons he gave were valid, but it boils down to his distrust of W/Cheney. Clinton trusted W because he kept his promise to fund NY rebuild after 9/11. There was her mistake.
Also, on the subject of war votes and Iraq
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/
The reasons weren't just valid. They were prescient. Every one of the things he said, but especially the cost, the losses in Afganistan. and biggest of all, ISIS, came true. This was his speech in 2002. You choose to focus on a 140-character tweet in 2015. In sum, you seem to be suggesting he idly spun up 5 reasons to fill up his speech but actually his only reason was he distrusted Bush...?
And, even worse, instead of reading intelligence briefings (this has come out btw, she ignored a lot of these), Hillary decided to send the country to war based on her feels about Bush?
I'm not sure if Bernie or Hillary are getting more insulted in your scenario.
Yes, he voted for Bill's bombings. It's weird that Bush had to ask Congress for permission when he wanted to actually effect regime change...surely that means the 1998 legislation was toothless.
Nothing to see here, move along
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article70343792.html
Clinton vs. Trump: Even their supporters don’t like them
Clinton vs. Trump: Even their supporters don’t like them
- Hold-your-nose election: Front-runners unusually unpopular
- Clinton tops Trump, but ties Cruz, trails Kasich
- Sanders has big edge over Trump
20 sec sound bite out of context vs 11 minutes or back n forth.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/190343/trump-clinton-supporters-lead-enthusiasm.aspx
I thought it was an excellent rebuttal. Strangely, that may harm Clinton's appeal amongst the black vote.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/cli...l-declassify-records-on-ufos-if-shes-elected/
EDIT!
KingEric will love this. On a serious note, that is pretty damn cool, although that in itself leads me to believe there is nothing much in them if she says that. Conspiracy nuts will undoubtedly say they kept loads back and hidden. But I still think it's pretty cool.
Genuinely surprised at those numbers.
Numbers don't lie, she has 2.4 millions vote more than him. A supporter at the poll is more enthusiastic than a supporter at a rally. A supporter who canvass, fundraise, phone bank is more enthusiastic than one who spends his time posting dark memes on the net. Perception vs reality.
He just rattled off facts and stats on the spot to silence the dipshit. No one messes with the Big Dawg. As for harming appeal, they aren't doing that well with young blacks, so I doubt it matter.
She has 2,4 million votes more than him, having ploughed through and finished the voting in the South which favoured her massively. We'll see where the popular vote stands when all is said and done but it's a bit disingenuous to use those numbers to prop up the popular Hillary conception.
And you don't think Sanders has a massive network of people phonebanking, fundraising and the like? He's got three times the individual donations that Obama had, and people are phonebanking voluntarily in massive numbers, including a lot of people abroad who see the importance of this election.
If you think Bernie supporters are just keyboard warriors, you're sorely mistaken.
Illinois, Ohio, Nevada, Arizona, Massachusetts, Florida disagreed. It's one of the myth that needs to die.
Yes, he has a great fundraising operation, but that doesn't translate to a strong ground game. They've been out-organized in most primaries.
I assume no such thing. Keyboard warriors don't get 6.5 millions votes, there are real people with legitimate concerns behind his movement, but keyboard warriors created the perception that his campaign is so enthusiastic and groundbreaking while actual data say it's not the case. Aside from the fundraising operation, it lags behind Obama '08 significantly in every aspects.
It's my personal belief on the matter. Countries with low gun deaths and strict gun laws tend to be more liberal, homogenous and richer. Racial tension and class struggle tend to exacerbate the problem.
Gun laws are necessary, but to address the problem at its roots, there must be economic empowerment for poor whites who feel increasingly marginalized in your society, as well as the black and Latino community. This is one area where I agree with Sanders. People more well off in life are less likely to commit violent crimes. However, until such time, and til you can carry out a full gun ban, the industry needs to be hold accountable for their reckless proliferation of these weapons so that they excercise more duty of care on their products and customer. Customized fingerprint trace for every hand gun for example is a start. No more toddlers shooting themselves or other accidentally, but this will never happen if the industry is protected under the current law.
Gun laws are necessary, but to address the problem at its roots, there must be economic empowerment for poor whites who feel increasingly marginalized in your society, as well as the black and Latino community. This is one area where I agree with Sanders. People more well off in life are less likely to commit violent crimes. However, until such time, and til you can carry out a full gun ban, the industry needs to be hold accountable for their reckless proliferation of these weapons so that they excercise more duty of care on their products and customer. Customized fingerprint trace for every hand gun for example is a start. No more toddlers shooting themselves or other accidentally, but this will never happen if the industry is protected under the current law.
I didn't say she had no support outside the South, I'm saying the majority of her overwhelmingly favourable states have passed, which turns . Not sure what Florida is doing on that list, btw?
Hillary's run for president before, and she's married to Bill Clinton. You don't think she starts off with a leg up in terms of organising? And she started with virtual universal name recognition, Sanders has had a LOT more to do in order to even get his skin in the game. Add to that the near media blackout on his campaign for most of the race and you get a different picture than the one you're trying to paint.
The most populous states still to come all look to favour her so it seems unlikely that figure will drop by much. A better argument from Sanders point of view is that his greatest level of support comes from caucuses, which don't count turnout in the same way and thus his overall figure is smaller than it should be. But then you get into the peculiarities of caucuses themselves.
Because while it was part of the Confederacy, the demographic make up nowadays of the state is different to most Southern states?
I'm not trying to paint Clinton as the underdog. She is the clear frontrunner and presumptive nominee from the off. Yet, it doesn't mean there's no enthusiasm behind her candidacy. 3rd consecutive Democratic term, first woman's presidency, return of the Clinton to the WH (to a fair number of Dems who are loyal to them and remember the prosperity of the 90s) are all cause for enthusiasm. Sanders has the optics of large rallies and vociferous online support but it doesn't mean he generates more enthusiasm. Barrack Obama demonstrated that a truly transformative candidate with a sound strategy can beat her, so you can't claim Bernie has 'momentum', 'enthusiasm' while he's struggling to beat this supposedly lame establishment figure.
I called both Iowa and New Hampshire for Sanders 8 months ago. He's the hip progressive type that surface in the Democratic primaries from time to time, McGovern, Mondale, Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean. What do they have in common? Enthusiastic youth support, failure ultimately. The first two lost the general 1-49 in states, with respective electoral vote count of 13 and 17:
Bernie has just accepted an invitation to meet the Pope at a conference at the Vatican next week. The MSM will have to cover that, although i'm sure they will find a beauty pageant or a Donald Trump tantrum that will be more newsworthy.
A short break for a brief history lesson of recent Republican politics . . .
As if you haven´t been sickened enough by Republicans and their Trump `n Cruz pathetic farce, that loveable, big bear of an Ex Republican Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert, is back in the news. "Lawyers for former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, convicted last year of a financial crime in a hush-money case, urged a federal judge on Wednesday to spare him prison time for health reasons and because he is "deeply sorry."
He is deeply sorry for the financial crime of hush money and is looking for leniency. Denny Hastert was the longest serving Republican Speaker of the House in history, a position that left him just two steps from the Presidency, just after George Bush and vice president Dick Cheney.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert
Dennis Hastert was also a sexual predator. As a high school wrestling coach, in typical predator fashion, he preyed on troubled young boys and used his influence and guile to have his disgusting sexual way with these troubled young boys. He would go on to continue with his considerable influence and guile to be the third most politically powerful man in the United States, for a record amount of time. A "family values," married-with-kids Republican, no doubt.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-dennis-hastert-investigation-met-20160406-story.html
Lest you ever forget, here´s his all American Republican Speaker of the House story.
Dennis Hastert accused of sexual abuse by at least 4, sources say
. . . In a statement, Hastert attorney Tom Green did not specify any sexual abuse by his client but did say Hastert was apologetic and had suffered humiliation and shame.
"Mr. Hastert has made mistakes in judgment and committed transgressions for which he is profoundly sorry," Green said. "He fully understands the gravity of his misconduct decades ago and regrets that he resorted to … an effort to prevent the disclosure of that misconduct."
In a small town where the Tastee Freez was a gathering place for local teens, Hastert taught many siblings of the alleged victims and knew most of their parents on a first-name basis. Each of the alleged victims identified by the Tribune had their struggles. Yet they all kept quiet about their hometown's favorite son and the inappropriate sexual contact that they alleged he had with them when they were high school students and he was in a position of trust.
Now 74 and said to be in failing health after suffering a near-fatal blood infection and stroke, Hastert has not been charged with harming a child. Such charges, according to legal experts, would be barred by statutes of limitation. Instead, Hastert pleaded guilty last year to illegally structuring cash withdrawals to evade bank currency-reporting requirements as he pooled his money to give to Individual A as part of an agreement to keep him quiet . . .
*Continue reading at risk of being physically sick
As if you haven´t been sickened enough by Republicans and their Trump `n Cruz pathetic farce, that loveable, big bear of an Ex Republican Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert, is back in the news. "Lawyers for former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, convicted last year of a financial crime in a hush-money case, urged a federal judge on Wednesday to spare him prison time for health reasons and because he is "deeply sorry."
He is deeply sorry for the financial crime of hush money and is looking for leniency. Denny Hastert was the longest serving Republican Speaker of the House in history, a position that left him just two steps from the Presidency, just after George Bush and vice president Dick Cheney.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert
Dennis Hastert was also a sexual predator. As a high school wrestling coach, in typical predator fashion, he preyed on troubled young boys and used his influence and guile to have his disgusting sexual way with these troubled young boys. He would go on to continue with his considerable influence and guile to be the third most politically powerful man in the United States, for a record amount of time. A "family values," married-with-kids Republican, no doubt.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-dennis-hastert-investigation-met-20160406-story.html
Lest you ever forget, here´s his all American Republican Speaker of the House story.
Dennis Hastert accused of sexual abuse by at least 4, sources say
. . . In a statement, Hastert attorney Tom Green did not specify any sexual abuse by his client but did say Hastert was apologetic and had suffered humiliation and shame.
"Mr. Hastert has made mistakes in judgment and committed transgressions for which he is profoundly sorry," Green said. "He fully understands the gravity of his misconduct decades ago and regrets that he resorted to … an effort to prevent the disclosure of that misconduct."
In a small town where the Tastee Freez was a gathering place for local teens, Hastert taught many siblings of the alleged victims and knew most of their parents on a first-name basis. Each of the alleged victims identified by the Tribune had their struggles. Yet they all kept quiet about their hometown's favorite son and the inappropriate sexual contact that they alleged he had with them when they were high school students and he was in a position of trust.
Now 74 and said to be in failing health after suffering a near-fatal blood infection and stroke, Hastert has not been charged with harming a child. Such charges, according to legal experts, would be barred by statutes of limitation. Instead, Hastert pleaded guilty last year to illegally structuring cash withdrawals to evade bank currency-reporting requirements as he pooled his money to give to Individual A as part of an agreement to keep him quiet . . .
*Continue reading at risk of being physically sick
Last edited:
Didn't Newt Gingrich bang someone else while his wife had cancer and the impeachment trial of Clinton was going on? Lovely people the lot of them.
Would expect anything you less from Newt? Point being, do we really want to let these people run the United States government again?
- Status