Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Old Man]

And if you support gun rights, a Hillary selected Supreme Court with 1-4 Justices of had choice is terrifying.

 

This election sucks.

Is there any real evidence that Hillary is going to go on a gun seizing rampage once in office? I note that Obama's Plan To Take All Our Guns is about seven years late. (Perhaps because it's just a gun lobby marketing ploy. )

[Starlord]

Is there any real evidence that Hillary is going to go on a gun seizing rampage once in office? I note that Obama's Plan To Take All Our Guns is about seven years late. (Perhaps because it's just a gun lobby marketing ploy. )

 

http://www.snopes.com/nra-hillary-clinton-quote/

[Simon]

And we've just had two people punted from this thread and placed into the moderation queue.  I'd strongly suggest that everyone else read and follow the rules of this thread.

[Ranxerox]

I don't engage in fear based voting. I don't engage in slippery slope fallacies. I won't vote for Hillary.

 

I don't vote for a candidate that:

 

- Supported the Iraq War.

- Pushed Obama into Libya (what he says is his biggest mistake).

- Pushed military action for Syria (and wants a no fly zone).

- Pushes for military action against Iran (or at least the option. Gee...very Republican, eh?).

- Supported the TPP (her state department helped write it and she lobbied for it forty-five times!).

- Supported NAFT.

- Supported/lobbied for the Omnibus Crime bill for the tough on crime part (not for the violence against women part or the assault rifle ban).

- Flip flops on gay marriage.

- Flip flops on guns.

- Engages in dirty politics to "artfully smear" her opponents (Bernie Bros and Obama Boys and using Kennedy assassination or Sandy Hook against her opponents).

- Sold weapons to nations around the world while pretending to be anti-weapon (BTW, one of those weapon manufacturers she helped sell weapons for was the same one that created the assault rifle used in Sandy Hook).

- Pushed fracking around the world (climate change advocate? Yeah right).

 

I can go on and on. There are so many negatives with Hillary. I will never support her as my vote is earned, not given. No, I won't vote Trump either. And a vote for another is not a vote for a different candidate. That's a false dichotomy fallacy.

 

They can keep their tribalism.

 

As the only poster at this board who (to my knowledge) has declared Hillary to be their first choice candidate, I would like to say that while I have occasionally voted for candidates that I was 'meh' about when I liked their opponent even less, I have never voted for a candidate who I flat out disliked.  So, I certainly am not going to ask you to.  Go ahead and cast your vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or Gloria La Riva.  My feelings will not be hurt*.

 

 

* -since I know that worries about hurting my feelings were keeping you awake at night 

 

I know there are people who don't like the "vote for the lesser evil" argument, but to put things in historical context, there were people on the left who were highly critical of Al Gore and who voted for Ralph Nader instead, or who stayed home. Some of those Nader voters lived in Florida. In retrospect, was that principled moral stand the best choice? Were there serious consequences for the electorate and the American people as the result of that choice? If you put those Florida Nader voters in a time machine and sent them back to Election Day 2000, how many would make the exact same choice?

It isn't fear-mongering when you simply reiterate the other candidate's stated policy platform. It's reality. Not every election affords an opportunity to vote FOR someone. Sometimes it really IS about voting against the greater evil. In this election, imo, it's akin to choosing between Dracula...and Cthulhu. Dracula is bad and evil, but...

 

Let me let you in on a little secret: there is nothing amazing or miraculous about Donald Trump's primary victories.  He is out giving a message that a sizable section of GOP base has been wanting to hear for years if not decades and as a result they are supporting him.  See nothing really strange or unexpected about that.  I bother to say this, because political punditry was caught off guard and has been acting like Donald Trump is some astounding thing and that no election upset is conceivably beyond him.  This is poppycock.

 

Trump has some really committed supporters and there are enough of them to rock the Republican primary process, but they don't actually make up a very big percentage of the general electorate.  To put things in perspective, to date during the primary Hillary Clinton has received  12.5 million votes to Donald Trump's 10.7 million votes. This is despite the fact that she is running against a likable challenger with a message that appeals to large number of Democratic primary voters and he has been running against, well, Ted Cruz.

 

What I am saying here is that you don't need try to talk Bernie supporters who can't stand Hillary to vote for her anyway.  They can all follow their consciences and everything will be just fine.  Hillary will win anyway.

[Pattern Ghost]

Is there any real evidence that Hillary is going to go on a gun seizing rampage once in office? I note that Obama's Plan To Take All Our Guns is about seven years late. (Perhaps because it's just a gun lobby marketing ploy. )

 

Here's my take on the situation:

 

Lobbyists for any cause tend to appeal to emotion, so any statements they make need to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Obviously, the President is the head of the Executive branch and can't make new law. The President has some leeway in how laws are enforced, though. The President also appoints justices to the SCOTUS, with Congressional vetting.

 

The main area for concern should be the SCOTUS appointments. Heller and McDonald were both wins for the pro-gun lobby. However, they leave leeway for gun control legislation, because "reasonable restrictions" are allowed. The question of what constitutes reasonable is very up in the air.

 

Another, more thorough, AWB becomes a possibility if control of Congress and the Presidency go to a party with that as part of its platform. This doesn't seem to be a major issue in the near term. It is an issue with regards to state regulations which the pro gun lobby might oppose, since if challenged to the Supreme Court level they are likely to be pass a reasonableness test.

 

BUT . . . the SCOTUS doesn't seem likely to hear any 2nd Amendment cases any time soon regardless of conservative/liberal balance, IMO.

 

In that regard, the threat to the gun lobby's interests seems low or a wash in my mind.

 

The notion that the SCOTUS will overturn a prior ruling is also a fallacy,, though it may just be a way to simplify and emotional weight to the above issue. Appealing to logic doesn't really appeal to the masses so much.

[Ragitsu]

Prepare for a one-term presidency if Bernie doesn't win.

[Ragitsu]

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/190787/clinton-image-among-democrats-new-low.aspx

[Old Man]

Considering how this election has gone so far, I wouldn't try to predict what'll happen next month, let alone four years from now.

[csyphrett]

Virginia Foxx from my district is throwing support for Trump. Just saw that in the paper. 

CES

[Pariah]

All right, let's say that I've looked at the presumptive nominees from the Republican and Democratic parties--Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, respectively--and decided that I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either of them. What are my other options?

 

I, like most Americans, I expect, know little of political parties outside the Big Two.  I've heard a bit about three other parties: Libertarian, Green, and Constitution.  Based on just a little research, here's what I think I know so far:

 

Libertarian Party: Believes that government has become too large and too invasive.  Supports the idea of limited government and individual liberty.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

 

Green Party: Kind of like Democrats, but with a greater emphasis on the environment--perhaps to the point of Maslow's Hammer, perhaps not.  Would love to see Al Gore sign up and run for President under their banner. Decidedly liberal in their views.

 

Constitution Party: Believes in a strictly literal interpretation of the Constitution, with a special focus on States' rights.  Profoundly conservative, they stand ready to absorb the Tea Party if/when the GOP mainstream finally shows them the door.

 

Am I close? I know some of you know much more about these parties than I do.  What can you tell me?

[Cancer]

If you're fifty years old or more, it's already too late to emigrate, unless you are so wealthy that the receiving state can be certain you will not be a drain on their resources.

[Ranxerox]

All right, let's say that I've looked at the presumptive nominees from the Republican and Democratic parties--Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, respectively--and decided that I cannot, in good conscience, vote for either of them. What are my other options?

 

I, like most Americans, I expect, know little of political parties outside the Big Two.  I've heard a bit about three other parties: Libertarian, Green, and Constitution.  Based on just a little research, here's what I think I know so far:

 

Libertarian Party: Believes that government has become too large and too invasive.  Supports the idea of limited government and individual liberty.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

 

Green Party: Kind of like Democrats, but with a greater emphasis on the environment--perhaps to the point of Maslow's Hammer, perhaps not.  Would love to see Al Gore sign up and run for President under their banner. Decidedly liberal in their views.

 

Constitution Party: Believes in a strictly literal interpretation of the Constitution, with a special focus on States' rights.  Profoundly conservative, they stand ready to absorb the Tea Party if/when the GOP mainstream finally shows them the door.

 

Am I close? I know some of you know much more about these parties than I do.  What can you tell me?

 

I don't think I would mention the Libertarian Party without noting that it is popular with business types looking to get out from government regulations like the Koch brothers.

 

Also, I would like to add my own personal favorite protest vote, the Peace and Freedom Party, to the list.  They are basically a bunch of peace activist and hippies.

[Christopher R Taylor]

The Free Market at work

 

[Vondy]

Dupe

[Vondy]

I'm voting for Bernie, even if I have to write him in.

[Vondy]

But, what if the people who say they are leaving are people I'd like to see go?

 

Dillema!

[Iuz the Evil]

That's an impressive black and blonde coiffure on that realtor. West Texas regionalism indeed.

[megaplayboy]

Big meeting today between Paul Ryan and D.J. Trump.

[Old Man]

What's the worst that could happen?

[megaplayboy]

What's the worst that could happen?

points to your sig

[death tribble]

Big meeting today between Paul Ryan and D.J. Trump.

What kind of music does DJ Trump play ?

[megaplayboy]

So, a little game theory here. Assuming that Clinton and Trump are the respective nominees, here are the potential electoral outcomes:

1) Clinton wins by a lot. This would flip the Senate and, with a big enough margin, the House to the Democrats. That would enable Democrats to enact a center-left policy agenda and shift the direction of the Supreme Court to the left for the next 10-20 years.

2) Clinton wins by a little. This would continue the current divided government scenario. Neither side would be able to enact their policy agendas, but from a Democrat POV, holding the presidency would enable Clinton to block repeal of Obamacare, and appoint at least moderate jurists to the SCOTUS.

3) Trump wins by a little or a lot. This gives the Republicans control of all branches of the Federal Government. Trump appoints a conservative to replace Scalia...and Ginsburg, and maybe Breyer too. The Republican congress passes a conservative policy agenda, and Trump's policy agenda, which Trump signs into law.

 

I would add that, historically, following election losses, the national Democratic party is just as likely to shift to the right as to the left(see also 1988-1992). This informs my decision-making as a rational Liberal lefty.

[Marcus Impudite]

If anyone here knows anyone who is threatening to move to Canada if [inserted the name of the candidate they hate most here] wins the election, give them a gentle reminder of the following two facts:

 

1. Canada is not some magical utopia and it most certainly is not your personal "Purge Bunker."
2. Acquiring Canadian citizenship or their equivalent of a green card isn't as easy as you're probably thinking. Be prepared to fill out a mountain of paperwork and study up on Canadian history for the citizenship test; and that much assumes you have highly marketable job skills or are filthy rich.

[Cancer]

If anyone here knows anyone who is threatening to move to Canada if [inserted the name of the candidate they hate most here] wins the election, give them a gentle reminder of the following two facts:

• Canada is not some magical utopia and it most certainly is not your personal "Purge Bunker."
• Acquiring Canadian citizenship or their equivalent of a green card isn't as easy as you're probably thinking. Be prepared to fill out a mountain of paperwork and study up on Canadian history for the citizenship test; and that much assumes you have highly marketable job skills or are filthy rich.

This is true for approximately all countries. And, as I mentioned above, if you are not filthy rich, there are age limits as well.

[Old Man]

 

If anyone here knows anyone who is threatening to move to Canada if [inserted the name of the candidate they hate most here] wins the election, give them a gentle reminder of the following two facts:

 

• Canada is not some magical utopia and it most certainly is not your personal "Purge Bunker."
• Acquiring Canadian citizenship or their equivalent of a green card isn't as easy as you're probably thinking. Be prepared to fill out a mountain of paperwork and study up on Canadian history for the citizenship test; and that much assumes you have highly marketable job skills or are filthy rich.

You should build a wall.