[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[squadops]

The fact you would prefer someone that is being investigated for criminal acts as our president says plenty about you. Not only that, this Johnson person you speak of has no better chance of becoming our president than you think Sanders does.

In the primary only, in the primary. Johnson has a slim chance sure, but it is much better than your guys chance of zero.

Besides, everyone is a criminal sooner or later

 

[CodeRedR51]

In the primary only, in the primary. Johnson has a slim chance sure, but it is much better than your guys of zero.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

 

[squadops]

I will, and I know that it is true, your guy is done. Thank God.

 

[mustafur]

I have to believe at this point you are simply angry that Bernie is not electable. I gave you examples of what we have learned from history, those who do not learn are bound to repeat.

Maybe in another 8 years you can have the U.S. candidate you would like win, it's a long way off and you are not even a U.S. citizen lol

I'm just trying to get Fact out of you, so far I've failed miserably.

Pretty much everything i have asked you, could be asked by anyone from any political belief system because Im asking for factual information, and history that supports your argument from the basis of how current applies.

 

[huskeR32]

I gave you examples of what we have learned from history, those who do not learn are bound to repeat.

No, you didn't. What you did do is falsely equate democratic socialism and Marxism. You'll have to pardon the rest of us if we don't take such nonsense seriously.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I will, and I know that it is true, your guy is done. Thank God.

Yeah because whatever you say is fact. Please...

 

[Pillo-san]

Guys, guys let drop all of this. Lets hope Trump wins, I Kinda enjoy his outspokenness. The roller coaster that would be his leadership over Usa would be so fun to watch. Making Mexico to pay for the wall, maybe even a wall in the north too. Exterminating countries left and right, who would watch game of thrones when we would have Trump as president of Usa. I am up for that

 

[squadops]

Nooooo @Pillo-san

No, you didn't. What you did do is falsely equate democratic socialism and Marxism. You'll have to pardon the rest of us if we don't take such nonsense seriously.

It's real, it's happened before more or less, and even if it is not real it is not a chance Americans are willing to take.

 

[mustafur]

Guys, guys let drop all of this. Let hope Trump wins, I Kinda enjoy his outspokenness. The roller coaster that would be his leadership over Usa would be so fun to watch. Making Mexico to pay for the wall, maybe even a wall in the north too. Exterminating countries left and right, who would watch game of thrones when we would have Trump as president of Usa. I am up for that

Allthough im not American or even live there, im not entertained by the idea of a whole country being used as Geniea pigs for the rest of the worlds entertainment.

 

[squadops]

It's called a joke, meant to lighten the mood.

 

[Blood Eagle]

A peer-reviewed joint study by Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, published in March 2013, organized all 50 states into quartiles according to Brady Center ratings of the strength of each state's gun control laws. It found that states in the quartile with the strictest laws had a 40% lower rate of gun-associated homicide (does not include suicides, so it meets your "personal requirements") than the states in the quartile with the laxest laws.

I have many more "personal requirements" so again, I don't recognize those numbers as it's missing my other requirements such as, the legal status of the criminal's right to bear arms, drug usage by the criminal, legal status of gun used by the criminal (was it obtained legally and conform to all state and Federal regulations) etc. You'll never find anything like that. If you can find a study that suggests that the majority of firearm crime was committed by law abiding people that would be cool. You never will and let me add another "personal requirement", I would like the cases of self defense not included in the study. I can post pro gun stuff all day but won't. I have my own take. You have yours. You'll find pro gun arguments by Harvard as well. Boston has restrictive firearm laws similar to California (magazine limitations, ban on certain military lookalike guns from a 10 second google search). What I'm saying is, if you look for things to support your angle, you'll find it. You are looking at anti gun studies. You can look at pro gun studies too but take both with a grain of salt. You can paste as many studies as you want. It's your right. You lost me at Brady Campaign. #Merica

 

[huskeR32]

It's real, it's happened before more or less, and even if it is not real it is not a chance Americans are willing to take.

What's real? Marxism? Sure, I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is the notion that democratic socialism is the same thing. And since they're not, the whole point you've been trying to make is moot.

I'm trying to explain to you why Americans are against socialism

it is not a chance Americans are willing to take

Who made you the spokesperson for an entire country?

--

You are looking at anti gun studies.

It wasn't an anti-gun study. It was simply asking the question "Is there an association between gun control laws and gun-associated violence?" In fact, they very clearly stated they weren't claiming any correlation between the numbers, just an association:

A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association.

That's about as neutral as you can get.

What I'm saying is, if you look for things to support your angle, you'll find it.

You're lecturing about people twisting statistics to fit their arguments in the very same post in which you explicitly state the ways you'd prefer to cherry-pick the numbers. Irony, thy name is Blood Eagle.

 

[squadops]

What's real? Marxism? Sure, I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is the notion that democratic socialism is the same thing. And since they're not, the whole point you've been trying to make is moot.

Not at all if you care to study history just a tiny bit. Like I said, even if you don't think the threat is real, the U.S. does, I'm not speaking for everyone, I'm speaking for what I have seen in my lifetime.

Once again, stop being so sour that Bernie is dead in the water. All I did was tell you why.

The DNC will go with Clinton don't you realize? I don't know what the RNC will do(prolly not Trump), that is why I still have hope for Johnson.

Notice I'm the only one keeping on topic? lol

 

[Blood Eagle]

That's the least-surprising sign-off I've seen in a while.

I served my country proudly. It's ok if you don't have the same mindset or even love of Country that I do. You're entitled to it. I might have died for that. I didn't. You know what also isn't surprising? A condescending mention of my usage of the #murica hashtag as your sign-off. Carry on. We're done.

 

[squadops]

We thank you @Blood Eagle, a great deal

 

[mustafur]

Not at all if you care to study history just a tiny bit. Like I said, even if you don't think the threat is real, the U.S. does, I'm not speaking for everyone, I'm speaking for what I have seen in my lifetime.

Well if he is to study history it surely wouldn't be your disproven examples, so what is it.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Those points about freedom and stuff are pointed towards those in especially in USA, and when I said that having a assault weapons was kinda unnecessary freedom is because a weapon kills, just having a normal semi automatic gun that does not shoot 20-30 rounds/mag in 1.5 sec at over 900m/sec is totally overkill and excessive for a civilian. One bullet is enough to kill. To be honest I am not that familiar with British laws but I am confident that they are very similar to laws in Scandinavia. But I do know that you can drive a tank with your license, I do have Older British born friends.

900m/sec what the heck is that in relation to? Do they measure weapons by velocity where you come from? Also how do you go from talking about the USA to British, when you say you're directing it at one and not the other.

@ LMSCorvetteGT2
It is not that important if the riffle shoots 20 or 30 bullets/1.5 sec. The fact is that those guns are overkill for civilian citizens when a normal gun or a simple hunting rifle should do.

Sure it is when you've been informed about the facts and you continue to push on a fallacy, while in debate with a mod even...[/quote]

Civilians can't get them because there is a large background check done by government law enforcement, then you have to pay a tax that most people can't afford on a yearly basis, for a gun they can't purchase most times anyways due to being quite expensive.

How often do we get to read about well known gun advocates that shout about that gun laws are important and such and then next day they get shot by accident by their own kids or the kids shoot themselves/their brothers/sisters. That is not what we are supposed to discuss here but you get mine point I guess. Owning a gun does not equal as freedom.

With automatic guns? None. Since your avoiding the issues you posed and trying to move the goal post. Owning a gun does equal freedom it says so in our bill of rights (U.S. citizens).

 

[squadops]

@mustafur

As you wish, I might only bat .500 but I can promise you that the u.s. is still not interested in anything remotely related to socialism because there is a strong belief that it leads down that nasty road. We've been there.

Broken record since it seems so easily ignored, our country was formed against all that socialism is designed to do, later on we saw the world wars and also the cold war. It leaves a very nasty taste in the mouths of our elders, mainly the ones who vote. Both parties know this, that is why we are not a democracy, even with a Bernie movement they are our safety net.

As much as you do not like it, we are not a democracy for a very important reason. Democracy and socialism fail in the eyes of our founders and I'll be damned if we have not been the greatest country on earth for longer than anything else I can think of.

That is why, argue all you want.

With automatic guns? None. Since your avoiding the issues you posed and trying to move the goal post. Owning a gun does equal freedom it says so in our bill of rights (U.S. citizens).

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Most people have no idea what that means 👍

 

[Blood Eagle]

We thank you @Blood Eagle, a great deal

No problem

You know what I've always found funny? The similarities in the Oath that a Naturalized US Citizen has to take when they become a citizen and the Oath you take when you swear in to the Military.

Naturalized US Citizen Oath:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Military Oath:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Both come down to defending the Constitution. One could gather that people born in the US who have never taken an Oath are under the same requirement. So, sorry if I'll never vote for a politician who who has anti-constitutional policies. It's really that simple to me. There is no expiration date on an Oath.

 

[huskeR32]

Not at all if you care to study history just a tiny bit.

I have no problem paying attention to history. What I have a problem with is drawing false equivalences between different concepts.

You insisting that the history of Marxism has something to teach us about Bernie Sanders and his decidedly un-Marxist beliefs is silly.

Once again, stop being so sour that Bernie is dead in the water.

One, I don't think Bernie is "dead in the water." Two, I don't really care if he is.

I don't need to be a Bernie supporter to recognize the fallacious nature of your arguments.

--

I served my country proudly. It's ok if you don't have the same mindset or even love of Country that I do. You're entitled to it. I might have died for that. I didn't. You know what also isn't surprising? A condescending mention of my usage of the #murica hashtag as your sign-off. Carry on. We're done.

I edited my post almost immediately to remove that bit, because it didn't come off how I intended it to. My apologies if you feel that I impugned your service, it certainly was not my intention to do that.

That said, it's the bit in bold that gets at what I was (poorly) trying to comment on. Your use of "#Merica" to end a pro-gun argument implies that it's un-American to disagree with that stance. And that's nonsense.

 

[squadops]

Keep dreaming @huskeR32, we are not and will never be a socialist country 👍

There is nothing false in what I say, you need some Jefferson to refresh your memory? Prolly not as you claim to understand the history behind our country.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I edited my post almost immediately to remove that bit, because it didn't come off how I intended it to. My apologies if you feel that I impugned your service, it certainly was not my intention to do that.

That said, it's the bit in bold that gets at what I was (poorly) trying to comment on. Your use of "#Merica" to end a pro-gun argument implies that it's un-American to disagree with that stance. And that's nonsense.

I get it. Read my oath post above. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree about guns. It's a never ending debate, but even a Presidential Oath is to uphold Constitutional obligation. This means that anti gun politicians have no intention of doing what they swore to. This should raise red flags with Americans, but never does. It's all about the guy who is going to change everything.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I get it. Read my oath post above. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree about guns. It's a never ending debate, but even a Presidential Oath is to uphold Constitutional obligation. This means that anti gun politicians have no intention of doing what they swore to. This should raise red flags with Americans, but never does. It's all about the guy who is going to change everything.

The fact that you have to swear to an invisible being that doesn't exist should be enough to render those oaths useless.

 

[squadops]

I would have an extremely hard time taking Sanders seriously if he honestly tried to take that oath. What a joke, that is why they claim it to be a living breathing document.

What a joke it is.

And not to mention commander in chief? In fairness that could be said for the others as well. Who was the last qualified commander we've had, Bush senior? hmmmm, not helping my cause I see.

The fact that you have to swear to an invisible being that doesn't exist should be enough to render those oaths useless.

Utterly tasteless. 👎

 

[CodeRedR51]

Utterly tasteless. 👎

Any oath that mentions "God" or requires you to put you hand on a bible means nothing to me.

 

[Blood Eagle]

The fact that you have to swear to an invisible being that doesn't exist should be enough to render those oaths useless.

Would you consider currency that says "In God We Trust" useless? If so, never spend money that has it on it. Seems like pretty easy solution. If you ever sell anything, make sure the buyer doesn't give you any money that has it as it's useless. Believe me, I'm not a religious person by any means but get real.

 

[squadops]

@R1600Turbo Either does their protection of your freedom apparently. You deserve neither.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Would you consider currency that says "In God We Trust" useless? If so, never spend money that has it on it. Seems like pretty easy solution. If you ever sell anything, make sure the buyer doesn't give you any money that has it as it's useless. Believe me, I'm not a religious person by any means but get real.

It wasn't there until 1956 anyway, and should be removed.

@R1600Turbo Either does their protection of your freedom apparently.

I never said that.

You deserve neither.

Now that, is tasteless.

 

[mustafur]

How does a country with no official religion have God mentioned in Oaths and in Mottos.

 

[Tornado]

The fact that you have to swear to an invisible being that doesn't exist should be enough to render those oaths useless.

Any oath that mentions "God" or requires you to put you hand on a bible means nothing to me.