Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

2016 U.S. General Election

2016 U.S. Election LOL

570 replies to this topic

#26
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

he FBI and other investigatory services are thinking this dude had another motive, that is hate or mental issues, that drove him to do this.

 

So the reasons he gave explicitly weren't the reasons?  I mean, the guy posted his reasons on social media and called up a reporter.  It's not like it was meant it to be some big mystery.

 

Almost all incidents involving mass murder on this scale was because someone was able to go to a gun store and buy a AR-15 and then go kill as many people as they want.

 

Not this one.  There was no AR-15.

 

Make an argument if you wish, but demonizing a gun that wasn't even used during the crime is not a serious response.

 

People in the military are issued these weapons, taught weapon "rules" and these weapons are accounted for.

 

Other than it looking scary, please explain why this gun is any different than other hunting rifles or handguns that might be used in its place.  How many mass shootings will actually be prevented because the shooter will have to go with an alternative?  How many lives will be saved because it's not available?  I'd wager to say that the answer to both questions is: None.

 

The reason it's found with some frequency in such shootings isn't because it's particularly deadly, but because it's particularly popular.  We're literally making a national political issue about a specific gun because of its success in marketing.



#27
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
You're hiding behind semantics. To say a mass shooting, regardless of dogma or gun type, isn't a gun issue is ridiculous.

Edited by Driver, 19 June 2016 - 09:35 AM.


#28
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

What semantics would I be hiding behind?

 

Like I said, turning everything into a gun issue makes things nice and safe.  We can pass new regulations.  We can attack the politicians that balk at passing the new regulations.  Doesn't really matter that it wouldn't save a single life.  It's the left reaching out for its security blanket instead of asking itself, "Sheesh, how do we stop acts of terrorism before they happen?"



#29
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
Semantics being invalidating what a Spam said because she named the wrong model of gun and questioned the reason behind the attack.

If 50 innocent people dying in a single act of gun violence isn't a gun issue to you... Well-- you're towing the party line so I don't expect anything else.

I'm not so singularly minded that I would say it is JUST a gun issue, it's not. There are multiple factors to consider-- but to dismiss guns as part of the equation completely is incredibly ignorant.

#30
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

Semantics being invalidating what a Spam said because she named the wrong model of gun and questioned the reason behind the attack.

 

That's not semantics.  The movement to ban the AR-15 because of Orlando despite it not being used there is quite real. It's not just Spam making an error.

 

Well-- you're towing the party line so I don't expect anything else.

 

Actually, I'm fairly weak on the 2nd Amendment.  This just isn't a case where gun control would have made a difference.  If anything, it's a textbook case in why soft targets should allow for concealed weapons.

 

Now, whether that'd be smart overall is another matter.  Most shootings aren't mass shootings and bringing guns into such places would put lives at risk in a different way.  But it would be ever so helpful and would discourage mass shootings, particularly from terrorists, if there were armed people within the masses.



#31
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts

“There has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton,” Obama said.

 

http://nypost.com/20...ate-in-history/

 

Ever heard of John Quincy Adams? Ike maybe? Or Thomas ****ing Jefferson? Does this clown (or anybody else on this planet) actually believe this crap? Remember when the President of the United States of America was a respectable person that didn't just spout clearly illogical nonsense... me neither.

 

Hillary Clinton doesn't even qualify for a security clearance. Something about being "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified material" according to the FBI (which would perform the investigation for that clearance). When was the last time we had a serious Presidential candidate that couldn't even be granted a security clearance?



#32
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts
Or Thomas ****ing Jefferson?

 

Jefferson's ridiculously overrated.  He was absent from the field through most of the critical years of the nation's birth until he decided to make it his personal mission to drive Hamilton insane (mission accomplished).  He was pretty much dead wrong in almost all the positions he took in those early days.  About the only good thing he ever did as president came because he abandoned his own ridiculous reading of the Constitution.  How could a land purchase not be included in the power to make treaties?

 

Jefferson's true contribution?  He was a solid politician when he wanted to be.  He managed to utterly defeat the Federalists before his party took on many of their attributes.  Oh, and he wrote the Declaration of Independence.  Good stuff, but the idea of natural rights was far from a novel concept (and one he failed to live up to himself).

 

I wouldn't even put Jefferson in the Top 5 of the Founding Fathers who were most qualified to be president.  Washington, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, and Franklin all easily outpace him.  Dedicated men all who did the hard work while Jefferson abandoned the field (sometimes literally).  And there are several men who would have my vote well before Jefferson.



#33
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts

Still and all, overrated as he may have been, Hillary doesn't even compare. The list of accomplishments is not just a little lopsided. He actually did accomplish some fairly important things. What has Hillary done to be considered so qualified? Besides marrying a guy that ended up POTUS and nursing the Arab Spring (AKA ISIS) as Sec State.



#34
monkeygirl

monkeygirl

    Advad Disagerer

  • Administrator
  • 22,202 posts

http://www.dailykos....Accomplishments



#35
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts
Do you think that resume compares favorably with Eisenhower or JQA?

#36
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,882 posts

Poor demonized Hillary. Too bad the GOP couldn't find a decent enough guy to run against her because, Jezus, I can't vote for a racist dude who can't put forward some type of plan for the future. The GOP hasn't done one wit of thing except now they want to investigate the FBI's investigation of the investigation of Hillary. But Obamacare is still doing "fines" for not chosing to have insurance, Congress won't vote on a Supreme Court nominee so we get lousy decisions, and gun control still happens along with policy killings of random people like in Baton Rouge. I'm tempted to join the bat **** crazies who think the world is coming to an end.


  • Jaycie +1 this

#37
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts
Was that a yes then?

#38
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,882 posts

Meh. It's a big fat meh. Because really who needs a resume to be president now. W was a deserter and "old money" GOP and Clinton was from Arkansas and Obama was a nobody senator for Chicago. Trump's current resume has four bankruptcies and his dad was a KKK Klansman.  Comparing resume's is stupid to people who lived in a different time. If you want someone with stature from old wars why didn't McCain win or Powell at least get in the ring?



#39
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts
The President made an obviously false statement for political profit, big meh.

No wonder they don't worry about reality anymore. Neither do the people who are supposed to hold them responsible.

#40
Justus

Justus

    Member

  • Member
  • 13,091 posts

 

“There has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton,” Obama said.

 

http://nypost.com/20...ate-in-history/

 

Ever heard of John Quincy Adams? Ike maybe? Or Thomas ****ing Jefferson? Does this clown (or anybody else on this planet) actually believe this crap? Remember when the President of the United States of America was a respectable person that didn't just spout clearly illogical nonsense... me neither.

 

... then you should be satisfied with Obama's statement, since presidents tend to make illogical statements--especially during a presidential election year.



#41
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 592 posts
Almost satisfied,telling people they are full of **** is one of my favorite activities. A fine opportunity this is.

Don't have Obama's number though...

#42
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,882 posts
Gary Johnson is having the best run ever. He could end up in a debate.

#43
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

If I were Clinton, I wouldn't bother to debate at all.  I'd just declare it beneath my dignity to be up on the stage with Trump and leave it at that.  If the Republican debates were proof of anything, it's that debating Trump is descending into the gutter.  Yeah, you can still be eloquent, but there's no way you don't come out covered in filth.

 

That said, Johnson surely qualifies, though best run ever is hyperbole at this point.  He's been in double digits in several polls.  CNN has him at 13% this morning.  It's not out of the realm of possibility that he catches on fire.


  • Jaycie +1 this

#44
Justus

Justus

    Member

  • Member
  • 13,091 posts

Kaine gets the nod for Clinton's VP.



#45
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

Unlike what I wrote about Pence here, this was a solid pick by Clinton.

 

In contrast to Trump, who needs to find a way to expand his coalition, Clinton already has the polling lead and demographic edge.  So her strategy just needs to be to run out the clock without f-cking up.  Kaine accomplishes that.  Whereas Trump has to take some risks to get the lead, Clinton has little to gain, and much to lose by any risk taking.

 

A moderate, sorta boring White dude may not excite SJWs, progressives or the Bernie crowd, but, the simple fact is that Clinton doesn't need them.  They may not like hearing that, but it's the truth.  Every state with significant numbers of progressives is already voting Democrat, whether the progressives show up to the polls or not.  The only competitive state where you find Bernie supporters in large numbers is CO, and Clinton is currently up 8 points in CO.  And worst case, she could even lose CO and still be fine.

 

So yeah.  Good pick by Clinton.



#46
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,489 posts
I would also add that Clinton doesn't show much personality on the campaign trail, so she couldn't really afford to go with someone like Booker.

A boring white dude was pretty much her only real choice.
  • Ms. Spam +1 this

#47
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 17,882 posts
I think based on what I read Trump had a lot of rejection to his question "psst, hey buddy, you wanna be my running mate?"

#48
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

I think based on what I read Trump had a lot of rejection to his question "psst, hey buddy, you wanna be my running mate?"

Well yeah.  And it makes sense- the popular opinion/conventional wisdom right now is that Trump has no chance at winning, so who would want to be associated with that?

 

The rebuke of Kasich was still somewhat surprising- of all the GOP candidates, Trump always treated Kasich the best.  And Kasich never was strongly in the Trump opposition camp- he went from amusement (in the beginning) to indifference, to siding with Cruz in a self-interest ploy, but it never seemed like he cared that much.  So it's curious to see Kasich so vociferous about it now.
 

I think the Trump deniers are taking a calculated risk, but we'll see if it works out for them.  If Trump wins, they will be ostracized from politics for the rest of their career.  Should he lose, they could in position for the next race.  We'll see.



#49
Carrie Mathison

Carrie Mathison

    Member

  • Member
  • 1,108 posts

I would also add that Clinton doesn't show much personality on the campaign trail, so she couldn't really afford to go with someone like Booker.

A boring white dude was pretty much her only real choice.

 

This is a good point, and one I've seen circulated in some other articles today.

 

Basically- Clinton didn't have a lot of choice.  She could've gone with a woman (e.g. Warren), but then the story would've been that she was pushing an all-female ticket, whether that's fair or not.  And that's a distraction.  She could've gone with an up-and-coming minority or progressive activist (as you mention, e.g., Booker, etc), but as you point out, Clinton already has trouble generating enthusiasm and having the bottom of the ticket upstage her will be a distraction (at best), or totally de-rail things (at worst).

 

The boring white guy was really her only choice if she was playing it smart.  Sure, she doesn't gain any votes, but she doesn't lose any either.  And as I've already explained, Clinton's game here is to just run out the clock.  She doesn't need to grow her coalition- she just needs to get to November without f-cking up and before Trump gets a chance to build his base.


  • Brando +1 this

#50
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

If Trump wins, they will be ostracized from politics for the rest of their career

 

If Trump wins (low % chance) and is a popular president (0% chance) then they'd be ostracized.  Even if Trump wins, the Republicans will still go on pretty much as they have, except there will be little party loyalty to the president as head of the party.

 

It takes more than just winning to co-opt a whole political party.





Reply to this topic