EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5074
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 21 2016 23:03 Acrofales wrote: I don't really see the problem. I also think the main problem with gun ownership is not those 3%, but the gun owners among the other 97%. Presumably if you have a gun fetish, you also have a clue on proper maintenance and safety precautions. These are not the people shooting their wife/child/neighbour in the middle of the night by mistake. These are also not the gangsters shooting each other in Chicago/Baltimore/St Louis. I've had the unfortunate curse of knowing a significant number of rural area people. This is plain and simply not the case. If anything, they are just more careless because they are constantly handling guns. It really is just this somewhat perverted obsession with the spicy nature of deadly weapons. Out of all the gun perverts I know, none of them practice what I would even consider the minimum of safety. On September 21 2016 23:17 Simberto wrote: Yeah, agreed with this. I am generally not a fan of gun ownership, but practically there isn't a big difference between owning one gun or owning 30 in terms of how dangerous you are. People collect all sorts of stuff. Should a guy with 10000 stamps feel weird about it too? If your country of residence on TL is correct, I imagine you haven't really encountered many "gun enthusiasts". The way gun enthusiasts view guns is a very different thing from how other collectors view their collections. I'd say it is very distinct/unique. At the end of the day, you can always tell there's this feeling of "I fucking love that I'm holding a gun right now" when they're handling it, showing it off and stuff like that. Its extremely cringey. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 21 2016 23:19 farvacola wrote: Something tells me that one or two encounters with a fully armed John Bircher would change your mind lol I mean at the end of the day, from a personal safety self involved pov, I dont care whether someone is pointing a glock or a bazooka at me, Im kinda fucked either way. Only take a bullet. Although I do feel its wrong to say that people who just really like guns are by that association responsible gun owners or vice versa. I think onewould need to research that. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
 | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 21 2016 22:33 On_Slaught wrote: Only one of the two candidates is being judged as a possible president of the United states. The other is being judged like a reality TV star. This is coming up just in time for the debates though. Takes the Clinton Foundation line of attack off the table for Trump, else he will get hammered on this by Hillary and the moderator. You're right that the two candidates are being judged along different lines of disqualification. One major theme of the campaign is the intense voter disagreement on scandal and temperament. Some days I think it's a reality tv show on one side and the Sopranos on the other. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6313 Posts
On September 21 2016 18:19 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: I'm not here to defend Bush so I'm not sure why you're getting partisan but did you even read the article? This is the weakest post WW2 recovery ie weaker than the recovery under Bush from the dot com bubble/ 9/11 recession. Obama is the first president since Hoover not to oversee at least one year of 3% GDP growth - fact.Go look it up. And i agree that any recovery/expansion under Trump would be weaker than it is now under Obama.That has been the trend since the late 1970's.The guy i replied to was arguing the economy is strong, I am saying it's weak now and will be weaker whoever gets elected, I've been saying that for months. And the other guy who mentioned China - point about China is they are buying up hard assets all over the globe.Farmland, mining companies, ports, huge investments in Africa, factories.Try invest in Chinese owned companies and see how far you get.Meanwhile five trillion of the US debt is due to the Afghan and Iraq wars. That's foreign direct investment and it's done by companies / private persons in the US. They're something different than debt levels. FDI by the US is still higher than China. They're old numbers but still. en.m.wikipedia.org China's economic growth is a debt fuelled one and a lot of that debt goes into inefficient state owned enterprises. Those are assets you don't want to have. They're on the banks balancr sheets tho and will only get apparent when the government has to bail them out (again). | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On September 21 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: The question isn't "what weapon would you rather have pointed at you," it's "do you want to live near people who stockpile weapons and hate liberals/the government" Yeah I suppose in that case the answer would be a no. But isnt that just personal to me. I'd imagine alot of people would be fine with it ? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On September 21 2016 23:37 Rebs wrote: Yeah I suppose in that case the answer would be a no. But isnt that just personal to me. I'd imagine alot of people would be fine with it ? Oh they are, no doubt, the Midwest loves its guns  | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
Does he really think that a petty attempt to get under Hillary's skin is going to work, or does he just want to be an international embarrassment? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 21 2016 20:14 Plansix wrote: Pretty sure the lack of growth in the GDP has to do with the crash that took place during the Bush years. The Bush administration handed Obama a pending depression with a hearty "Good Luck." mmm nope sorry. this is such a typical knee jerk response from you. just because nettles is a lunatic doesn't mean he's wrong about everything | ||
KwarK
United States44247 Posts
On September 21 2016 10:41 GreenHorizons wrote: The hell I am, I'm just more uncomfortable with the race to the bottom being cheered on by some here. You all are just a mirror of what I've seen in person. Hillary supporters were smug, telling us they didn't need us at their meetings, etc... Hillary says she "worked with Bernie" on the platform, that was Bernie's delegates going above and beyond even what the campaign wanted in fighting it out at the convention sub committee meetings. Like pulling teeth, just for her to 180 on things like $15 min wage as soon as she could. She's a serial liar and has you all convinced that she's going to be something she isn't. Several people repeated the "But she'll get you closer to what you want better than Bernie could have". Please tell me what policies you are imagining that she fought for against significant opposition and still got implemented? Supreme Court justices? | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On September 21 2016 23:49 Doodsmack wrote: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/778238281196662784 Does he really think that a petty attempt to get under Hillary's skin is going to work, or does he just want to be an international embarrassment? Who cares? The dude is entertaining as fuck. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 21 2016 23:52 IgnE wrote: mmm nope sorry. this is such a typical knee jerk response from you. just because nettles is a lunatic doesn't mean he's wrong about everything Witness back to back sentences that contradict each other (keeping in mind the first sentence is part of his argument that Obama is to blame): "Obama is the first president since Hoover not to oversee at least one year of 3% GDP growth - fact. Go look it up. And i agree that any recovery/expansion under Trump would be weaker than it is now under Obama. That has been the trend since the late 1970's." | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 21 2016 23:58 RealityIsKing wrote: Who cares? The dude is entertaining as fuck. Adding to your pile of non-arguments, I see. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On September 21 2016 23:59 Doodsmack wrote: Adding to your pile of non-arguments, I see. Yeah, I'm not arguing with you. Just felt appropriate to write that there. | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On September 21 2016 23:59 farvacola wrote: "who cares?" and "so what?" might as well be Trump's real slogans You so clever! | ||
|
KwarK
United States44247 Posts
On September 21 2016 12:48 Jaaaaasper wrote: Can't wait to see what europe has to cut to fund having a millitary not propped up by the USA Nobody has any doubts that Germany could steamroll basically any country but the United States and China if it wanted to. That's basically why we keep US troops in Germany. It's not because we think Germany can't have a strong military, it's because the last 100 years have convinced us that Germany can't be allowed to have a strong military. It'd probably be fine if we relaxed on that one if we're honest, it's been 70 years, but the post war institutions were basically set up to establish a global American hegemony and the permanent occupation of Germany and Japan. They're not occupied because they're weak, they're occupied because they're great powers which rose too late to take their rightful place on the world stage in the 19th Century and acted out because of it in the 20th. | ||
| ||
