Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

i am legitimately scared about trump becoming president

Page 14 of 39 [ 623 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 39  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Zaye
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 159

25 Jan 2016, 12:49 pm

Me too. I'm afraid he may be a chronic narcissist or something.


_________________
Diagnosed with Asperger's and OCD. Though the OCD is way more apparent than anything if you knew me in-person.

If you realize that all things change, there is nothing you will try to hold on to. If you are not afraid of dying, there is nothing you cannot achieve. - Lao Tzu


Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

25 Jan 2016, 1:15 pm

Hillary is running a Hail Mary play, if elected President, she can pardon herself.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

25 Jan 2016, 2:00 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
Putin is an ex-KGB guy----and I believe he wants the Soviet system to be restored in some way.

Would you like to live under that form of Communism? Didn't think so!

How do you folks feel about Michael Bloomberg? He's a "lesser than two evils" type of candidate.


Bloomberg is the head of the anti gun organization, he's the sole person funding all the groups, all the attacks on guns, all the bribes to politicians. He doesn't stop at guns thoug, he wants to ban soda, fast food, snack food, he wants to control ever asset of our life's as he sees fit. Why not he's super rich so he's a god amongst poor. :roll:



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,514
Location: the island of defective toy santas

25 Jan 2016, 2:10 pm

I found this cartoon that illustrates how trump is a lesser evil than at least one other gop candidate-
Image



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

25 Jan 2016, 2:13 pm

Lukeda420 wrote:
Seriously is there any regulation at all on guns that some of you guys support? Give me an example of a regulation that you would support.


Any of the ones we had pre 1968. Minus the NFA

Background checks are gun stores was suppose to be a compromise not a starting point pushing towards total gun ban. But the elect doesn't compromise, and they won't stop til all guns are banned. Every proposed gun law in the last 8 years is terrible and only geared towards total gun ban.

Imagine this

Right gets law passed requiring people to get background checks before they can vote.
Next right wants to impose a 200 dollar fee to vote.
Next they want to impose a 50% tax on voting on top of the fee
Oops you were denied to vote because your name is similar to a felon, want to appeal?, sorry the fbi is no longer going to process appeals.
Now the right requires you to attend a bunch of classes and pass their tests before you're allowed to vote.
New law only rich can vote.
Final law, voting is now illegal. Who cares right, so few people are allowed to vote at this point anyways.

Go buy a gun, become a gun owner and your feel horrible from the constant attacks on you.
You'll be called a child murder, a monster, people will threaten to kill you. Tell you you should be dead.
You'll watch as your rights and freedoms are slowly destroyed. Then you live afraid that any day swat team could bust your door Down to take your property by force. Because gun owners are the only group of people it's ok to hate and treat bad.



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

25 Jan 2016, 2:29 pm

sly279 wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
Seriously is there any regulation at all on guns that some of you guys support? Give me an example of a regulation that you would support.


Any of the ones we had pre 1968. Minus the NFA

Background checks are gun stores was suppose to be a compromise not a starting point pushing towards total gun ban. But the elect doesn't compromise, and they won't stop til all guns are banned. Every proposed gun law in the last 8 years is terrible and only geared towards total gun ban.

Imagine this

Right gets law passed requiring people to get background checks before they can vote.
Next right wants to impose a 200 dollar fee to vote.
Next they want to impose a 50% tax on voting on top of the fee
Oops you were denied to vote because your name is similar to a felon, want to appeal?, sorry the fbi is no longer going to process appeals.
Now the right requires you to attend a bunch of classes and pass their tests before you're allowed to vote.
New law only rich can vote.
Final law, voting is now illegal. Who cares right, so few people are allowed to vote at this point anyways.

Go buy a gun, become a gun owner and your feel horrible from the constant attacks on you.
You'll be called a child murder, a monster, people will threaten to kill you. Tell you you should be dead.
You'll watch as your rights and freedoms are slowly destroyed. Then you live afraid that any day swat team could bust your door Down to take your property by force. Because gun owners are the only group of people it's ok to hate and treat bad.


Seriously, I am not talking about a ban. You don't have to bring it up in every post. I get it, you think the government wants to confiscate your guns. I however don't believe that is the case. If I thought your freedom was in jeopardy I'd be right there with you protesting, but I don't. So let's move on from that right now since virtually no one on this forum from what I have seen has come out in favor of a gun ban.

Here's the thing about your example, what you wrote is in my opinion just as unlikely as the government making guns illegal.

See it's not that I'm anti-gun, I just don't believe in the threat to the average gun owner's rights in that regard.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,627
Location: Long Island, New York

25 Jan 2016, 3:08 pm

Deltaville wrote:
I am Canadian, but I honestly think that Rand Paul would be the best candidate for the presidential election. I just doubt he will win the republican nomination, let alone the election.


ISIS destroyed any chance he had. His more isolationist less security state views was starting to gain traction after the Iraq War, Edward Snowdin revelations and relative lack of terror attacks here circa 2009-2013. In an era of renewed fear these ideas and he have been forgotten about. Of course in this era we need his views on these matters more then ever but American public opinion does not work like that.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,363
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Jan 2016, 3:36 pm

Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Just because you don't think guns are important to you doesn't mean you should force that opinion on others.


Who says I'm forcing my views on anyone? I'm just stating how I'd choose having a car over a gun.

By supporting gun control and using that you don't see guns as important as a reason for it.


Even if I do hold those positions, that hardly means that it's still anything more than just my opinion. I can express my opinion all I want, but it's not going to have any impact on you.


So you'd be okay with it if someone expressed an opinion that blacks should be sent back to Africa and gays put in concentration camps? After all, it wouldn't actually impact anyone if since it would just be an opinion.


Someone can rant and rave that sort of bigoted insanity all they want - this is a free country, after all. I just reserve the right to argue against them.


I just love it how you always have to lengths to remind us of the evils bigotry as if either you think we need to be told, or your reassuring yourself of your own beliefs...


You're the one who brought up those two scenarios, not I.

I just wanted to see what your reaction was to that scenario since you dwell on those. Actually, your reaction was different than what I expected.

Quote:
And isn't bigotry evil?

So is big government.
Well, big government is evil spawned from bureaucracy and arrogance but still evil in effect.


On the subject of big government being evil - only when they don't do their job caring for those in need.
You still didn't answer my question if bigotry is evil.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


AR15000
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 19 Jan 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Right behind you

25 Jan 2016, 4:05 pm

Lukeda420 wrote:
Seriously is there any regulation at all on guns that some of you guys support? Give me an example of a regulation that you would support.



In exchange for eliminating the Brady Bill, what I favor is a modification of the NFA that would allow for ownership of automatic rifles(under .50 caliber) without all the red tape but ban civilian ownership of all firearms that exceed .50 caliber along with military explosive devices.

And things like the M-134 minigun which technically can be owned with a class III firearms license would be strictly off limits but the stryker shotgun would be allowed.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Jan 2016, 4:18 pm

Lukeda420 wrote:
See it's not that I'm anti-gun, I just don't believe in the threat to the average gun owner's rights in that regard.


That's because this isn't your issue. Like I said to the other poster, the best comparison is abortion rights, where everyone knows that the anti-abortion people want a total ban but are settling for as many petty and inconveniencing regulations as they can get away with in order to make it as difficult as possible until they can shift the judicial landscape in their favor. This is EXACTLY how gun owners view anti-gun people and proposals, and the comparison tracks, right down to the emotional appeals and bloody shirt waving in lieu of actual arguments. I'm not the first to make this comparison, and I feel it's a useful one for liberals attempting to understand the absolute positions that gun owners take and why they take them. I'm not willing to compromise with people I feel to be bargaining in bad faith who are ignorant if not actively deceitful on the topic at hand, and I don't think many other people would be either.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

25 Jan 2016, 4:20 pm

AR15000 wrote:
In exchange for eliminating the Brady Bill, what I favor is a modification of the NFA that would allow for ownership of automatic rifles(under .50 caliber) without all the red tape but ban civilian ownership of all firearms that exceed .50 caliber along with military explosive devices.

And things like the M-134 minigun which technically can be owned with a class III firearms license would be strictly off limits but the stryker shotgun would be allowed.


That's oddly specific; is there some sort of crime wave involving miniguns, high caliber weapons, and explosives going on that I missed?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


AR15000
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 19 Jan 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Right behind you

25 Jan 2016, 4:33 pm

Dox47 wrote:
AR15000 wrote:
In exchange for eliminating the Brady Bill, what I favor is a modification of the NFA that would allow for ownership of automatic rifles(under .50 caliber) without all the red tape but ban civilian ownership of all firearms that exceed .50 caliber along with military explosive devices.

And things like the M-134 minigun which technically can be owned with a class III firearms license would be strictly off limits but the stryker shotgun would be allowed.


That's oddly specific; is there some sort of crime wave involving miniguns, high caliber weapons, and explosives going on that I missed?



Not that I'm aware of..........HOWEVER, if terrorists(domestic and foreign) get their hands on a minigun and mounted it onto a vehicle or an aircraft they could easily use it to kill scores of people. The minigun would be a great weapon for a drive-by shooting.

The purpose of restricting these weapons to military and law enforcement is to give the state the upper hand against terrorists, insurgents, and organized crime bosses.



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

25 Jan 2016, 4:46 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
See it's not that I'm anti-gun, I just don't believe in the threat to the average gun owner's rights in that regard.


That's because this isn't your issue. Like I said to the other poster, the best comparison is abortion rights, where everyone knows that the anti-abortion people want a total ban but are settling for as many petty and inconveniencing regulations as they can get away with in order to make it as difficult as possible until they can shift the judicial landscape in their favor. This is EXACTLY how gun owners view anti-gun people and proposals, and the comparison tracks, right down to the emotional appeals and bloody shirt waving in lieu of actual arguments. I'm not the first to make this comparison, and I feel it's a useful one for liberals attempting to understand the absolute positions that gun owners take and why they take them. I'm not willing to compromise with people I feel to be bargaining in bad faith who are ignorant if not actively deceitful on the topic at hand, and I don't think many other people would be either.


But there is a lot of room between lets have no regulations on guns and let's ban all guns. It seems that any regulation proposed no matter how modest is met with shrieks of "they're gonna take my guns!!" Considering that there is no public or political will to ban guns in this country, using that as an excuse to say no to any regulation is irrational.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

25 Jan 2016, 6:31 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Quote:
And isn't bigotry evil?

So is big government.
Well, big government is evil spawned from bureaucracy and arrogance but still evil in effect.


On the subject of big government being evil - only when they don't do their job caring for those in need.
You still didn't answer my question if bigotry is evil.

I'll just let your imagination run wild with that one. 8)


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

25 Jan 2016, 6:33 pm

AR15000 wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
Seriously is there any regulation at all on guns that some of you guys support? Give me an example of a regulation that you would support.


In exchange for eliminating the Brady Bill, what I favor is a modification of the NFA that would allow for ownership of automatic rifles(under .50 caliber) without all the red tape but ban civilian ownership of all firearms that exceed .50 caliber along with military explosive devices.

The only automatic rifles that are coming to mind are the M1918 Browning “BAR” series, FN-LAR, M14E2, etc. Those are all 7.62mm/.30 caliber. If there was ever an automatic rifle anywhere close to .50 cal. I’m not aware of it. Are you trying to say machinegun as in the M2?

Quote:
And things like the M-134 minigun which technically can be owned with a class III firearms license would be strictly off limits but the stryker shotgun would be allowed.
The cost of an M-134, also taking into account it’s voracious appetite for 7.62X51mm ammo, makes it for all practical purposes banned. That aside, I’m not understanding your phobia of them…


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

25 Jan 2016, 6:34 pm

Raptor wrote:
Quote:
And isn't bigotry evil?

So is big government.
Well, big government is evil spawned from bureaucracy and arrogance but still evil in effect.


Quote:
You cannot have a strong, capable military without big government. Nor can you have law & order which is the backbone of civilization.

We don't need an alphabet soup of federal agencies with their eyes on us to have the above.

Quote:
I'm getting sick and tired of rightwing anarchists and their childish view of the world and the people in it.

If you're sick and tired I recommend a nap and maybe you'll feel better after you wake up. Of course, I'll still be here.

Quote:
You can always relocate to Somalia or the Central African Republic in *big gubbermint* is such a problem for ya. :mrgreen:
I'd rather stay here and b***h about big gubbermint.


Quote:
Nevertheless, justice is something that right doesn't care about. The populist right values group identity and blind group loyalty more than anything else.

Yes, we're really awful.

Quote:
So to them, bigotry is GOOD as long it is not aimed at them; LOL.

Gee, it looks like you've got us all figured out.
I'd stay and chat longer but I've gotta pollish my jackboots for tonight's book burning down town. :twisted:


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson