US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5535

Prev 1 5533 5534 5535 5536 5537 10093 Next

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.

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

October 12 2016 23:30 GMT

#110681

Lord Tolkien

United States12083 Posts

October 12 2016 23:30 GMT

#110682

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tools/way-back-when/

This is good for a laugh.

Nevuk

United States16280 Posts

October 12 2016 23:31 GMT

#110683

kwizach

3658 Posts

October 12 2016 23:38 GMT

#110684

That headline: "President Confirms He Is Not a Demon"

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

October 12 2016 23:43 GMT

#110685

Plansix

United States60190 Posts

October 12 2016 23:49 GMT

#110686

Those two women have to be among the bravest people in this country right now. I can't imaginary exposing anyone I knew to the response they are going to receive.

farvacola

United States18819 Posts

October 12 2016 23:52 GMT

#110687

On October 13 2016 08:18 Mohdoo wrote:

Show nested quote +

If it was Kasich vs Ja Rule, would you, though? Kasich goes against everything I believe it, but he would keep the lights on.

I despise Kasich so even more so, Bone Thugz for cabinet spots to boot

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

October 12 2016 23:54 GMT

#110688

They do know Bill isn't on the ticket...

ticklishmusic

United States15977 Posts

October 13 2016 00:00 GMT

#110689

On October 13 2016 08:49 Plansix wrote:
Those two women have to be among the bravest people in this country right now. I can't imaginary exposing anyone I knew to the response they are going to receive.

I'll react with a certain degree of skepticism because of the rule of law and all, but let's say that the facts are not in Trump's favor.

Also, if he ends up guilty he should totally share a cell with Hastert. That would be some poetry.

Nevuk

United States16280 Posts

October 13 2016 00:00 GMT

#110690

Well I mean, what with Trump literally on the record as going out of his way to look at 15 year olds naked (and it's only wednesday! I would've though it was going to take weeks) they kind of need to go nuclear to draw attention away from just how disgusting Trump is.

edit: Here's the 10 year old girl video
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/trump-makes-questionable-comments-about-young-girls-in-1992-video

On_Slaught

United States12190 Posts

October 13 2016 00:17 GMT

#110691

Next few weeks are going to be very entertaining. Lets see how low he can drag this election before the country rejects him in a historic fashion.

Plansix

United States60190 Posts

October 13 2016 00:25 GMT

#110692

I feel this is appropriate for this moment.

Doodsmack

United States7224 Posts

October 13 2016 00:32 GMT

#110693

Media should bring back up Ivana Trump's rape allegation now, as well as the sex assault case he settled.

In true slimeball fashion, he threatened to sue the NYT reporter over that story lol.

oBlade

United States5294 Posts

October 13 2016 00:32 GMT

#110694

NBC keeps saying they haven't independently "verified" all the stuff from Wikileaks about Clinton they're reporting on. I don't remember that kind of attitude when the MSM reported on previous leaks from their impeccable record, like cablegate. But I could be wrong. Anyway, here's a nice corroboration:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/10/12/john-podestas-accounts-reportedly-compromised-after-password-found-in-wikileaks-dump/

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

October 13 2016 00:32 GMT

#110695

On the bright side of this shit storm maybe this will drive greater and greater numbers away from Evangelicalism in this country.

Doodsmack

United States7224 Posts

October 13 2016 00:39 GMT

#110696

tbh I wouldn't mind if the Trump campaign parades out more Clinton accusers. I would like to see both Donald and Bill get Cosby'd.

KwarK

United States42008 Posts

October 13 2016 00:43 GMT

#110697

On the Trump Cosby note.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-advice-bill-cosby_us_57fbfce2e4b0b6a43034d47c

Thieving Magpie

United States6752 Posts

October 13 2016 00:56 GMT

#110698

On October 13 2016 09:39 Doodsmack wrote:
tbh I wouldn't mind if the Trump campaign parades out more Clinton accusers. I would like to see both Donald and Bill get Cosby'd.

I could just see the ad campaign in response to that.

"You know Trump's inept when he can't even figure out which Clinton he's running against"

"Apparently Trump didn't realize it was the wife running for President..."

"Trump prefers attacking spouses more than problems"

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

October 13 2016 01:07 GMT

#110699

Sermokala

United States13753 Posts

October 13 2016 01:16 GMT

#110700

On October 13 2016 06:18 Plansix wrote:

Show nested quote +

On October 13 2016 06:11 Sermokala wrote:

On October 13 2016 06:02 Plansix wrote:

On October 13 2016 05:54 Sermokala wrote:

On October 13 2016 05:40 Plansix wrote:

On October 13 2016 05:35 Sermokala wrote:

On October 13 2016 05:19 Plansix wrote:

On October 13 2016 05:07 Sermokala wrote:

On October 13 2016 05:02 LegalLord wrote:
The NRA has a habit of being remarkably obtuse on "common sense gun regulation" that simply seeks to give law enforcement the ability to keep guns out of the hands of obviously unqualified people. It doesn't do them any favors.

But you have to keep in mind that you're talking about (what is now) a constitutional right. "common sense gun regulation" is common sense but a lot of it is pretty sticky when it comes to actually enforcing it. Are you advocating for police to take away your guns or search your house and body for guns if they or others judge you unqualified to have them? Not saying you directly but making a point about it.

Universal background check without a possible national registry is a hard sell to make with anyone no matter how many "do you want ice cream" polls you have.

Reductive arguments that constantly claim that any sort of regulation is impossible because gun ownership is a basic right and to risky are the reason we can’t have discussions on the subject. Speech and voting are also rights, but we limit those. Same with religion. We can restrict rights as long as everyone is allowed due process.

And the arguments would hold more water if the NRA and gun lobby was not trying to limit every aspect of the government’s interaction with guns. The CDC can’t do researching into gun violence. Sections of the government designed to regulate are prohibited from creating data bases. I have not checked recently, but there was a while where in the late 2000s where the ATF couldn’t make requests about gun sales using a computer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us/legislative-handcuffs-limit-atfs-ability-to-fight-gun-crime.html?_r=0

So as much as I love the discussion about guns being a basic right, we really need to get down the fundamental that the gun lobby is preventing laws that currently exist on the books from being enforced.

I'm not saying any regulation is impossible beacuse gun ownership is a basic right I'm saying that the regulations proposed by the left won't do anything but limit rights. How is the NRA and gun lobby any different then the lobby organizations for gun control? The CDC can't do research into gun violence because they were partisan when they were allowed to and we can't alllow government agencies to be openly partisan like that. Sections of the government are prohibited from keeping lists of people who have guns because keeping lists of people for specific reasons are scary.

What we really need to get down to is discussing why we really want gun control and how to peruse those reasons while balancing the limit of a constitutional right like any other constitutional right. Making the argument about one side or the other is the antithesis of any reasonable debate.

That rule on the CDC was passed in the 90s. It has been almost 20 years and I doubt may of the people who worked there still do. This is the arguments I am talking about. You say you are for gun control, but then we get an endless line of what-about-the-left. You bring up an agencies actions from nearly 20 years ago and assume we can never let them do research again because of that.

How about this, no new laws for 4 years, but we fund every agency and remove all restrictions on collecting data on gun violence and gun sales?

The argument is that if we fund them again whats to stop them from being partisan again? Its not like they came out and said "we're going to collect information to advocate for gun control". The very data that they collect would be hamstrung from the start as people scope over it for the slightest reason to call them partisan again and their defenders argue against these calls. That they would come from the obvious different sides of the isle automatically makes them partisan even without trying to be partisan from the start. Then we get a bunch of tainted data politically that doesn't help anyone but those that are trying to score political points.

We already have data from various sources even if they aren't complete. the CDC at least keeps track of what people are dieing from and the FBI keeps track of what people are being murdered by.
https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type

That isn’t an argument. That is just the slippery slope fallacy. Guns are not some magical issue that are immune to unbiased research.

I put that suggestion out there to see if you would provide some sort of counter offer. But you have reverted to the default “We can’t be 100% the research won’t be biased, so we can’t have any” argument. Which is an effort to keep the discussion where it is, without solutions or suggestions.

Do you truly believe it is impossible to have accurate scientific research performed or funded by the government on gun violence? And do you believe it is impossible the government to have a data base and data on gun sales and not infringe on the right to own guns?

Its not a slippery slope argument when theres no slope to slip on. Its an argument of whats the point when it will do nothing from the start. I'm not saying the research would be biased I'm perfectly sure the average or right group of people would be non partisan and the truth would and could go either way. I'm saying that the research they do will be partisan by the people that use the research. It has nothing to do with the research at all.

I say no to both you're questions. I think the government could and should fund research on a bunch of different policies and it should be its own department. I'm saying you don't think through your arguments past "are they good" and ignore what will happen if they become real policy. You aren't arguing the same things I'm arguing.

Thank you for clearing that up. You are correct, we have nothing further to discuss on the subject as we hold views on the value “unbiased” research and if the government is capable of it.

Did you even read

I'm not saying the research would be biased I'm perfectly sure the average or right group of people would be non partisan and the truth would and could go either way.

I'm saying right there that the government is capable of unbiased research and that I would value it. How you miss such a simple argument such as

The research isn't the problem

What people will do with the research is the problem

Is beyond me. At least you're consistent in being obstinate with that comment about it being a tactic. The problem with GOVERNMENT research being biased is that it being GOVERNMENT research means that it has a greater authority on the issue then that of a third party doing the research. You can bet your ass you won't give NRA research a half look as much as you would "women against gun violence" because they're clearly both agenda based organizations. But if its the government doing the research then it has weight and is suppose to be unbiased. so It being partisan is a big issue because you're giveing one side or the other extra support.

Prev 1 5533 5534 5535 5536 5537 10093 Next

Please or register to reply.

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5535

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming