[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;51220809]look at brexit
that was supposed to be a landslide remain so nobody was that bothered
the vocal minority won it, partly because everyone else didn't turn out[/QUOTE]
Uh, no it wasn't. The turnout was fairly decent and the pre-vote polling was borderline equalized, a far cry from the current polls between Clinton and Trump. Do you even know what a landslide is?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51220912]Considering the right to own those "killing machines" is written into the same document that says "hey it's ok to criticize the government", it makes sense that people would actually give a fuck about them, and makes sense that people wouldn't want a candidate that essentially supports arbitrary bans.[/QUOTE]
Except that document is nearly 300 years old, and I don't think the founding fathers accounted for 12 rounds per second of firepower since the best they had at the time was flintlock weaponry that took kind quite some tinkering before you were ready to fire again - not really at the level of "mag out, mag in, brapapapap, mag out, mag in, brapapapap" efficiency we have today.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51220912]I wouldn't mind Hillary getting into the whitehouse, but knowing that if she does we'll have 4 more years of "you don't NEED x" and "lets use common sense (ban these rifles for arbitrary reasons)", it's a pretty severe turn off.[/QUOTE]
And you saying this means you value your firearms over the health of your fellow countrymen. Which to me is even more arbitrary than "Maybe we should properly check the mental health of the person about to buy this actual death-machine".
I'm saying this as a mutual gun-nut btw, I love weapons and I think they're magnificent feats of engineering and even though I can't own real weapons of my own due to the gun laws in Sweden, I own a whole range of replicas.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51220990]Clinton would happily push through an AWB. I don't value a weapon more than my countrymen, I value the fact that we have rights, even though said document is 300 years old, and if you're going to shit all over one of them, then you can shit all over all of them.[/QUOTE]
That's a slippery slop. The 2nd Amendment is arguably the only "right" in your constitution that turns heads because it's such a ridiculous one. No other country has anything like it and we all do just fine.
Doing away with the 2nd Amendment or changing it to be more safe wouldn't magically open up the opportunity to revoke all your other ones - and even then the US is a member of the United Nations, and there you're protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which hold pretty much all of your constitutions, like Free Speech.
[url]http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/[/url]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51220990]Clinton would happily push through an AWB. I don't value a weapon more than my countrymen, I value the fact that we have rights, even though said document is 300 years old, and if you're going to shit all over one of them, then you can shit all over all of them.[/QUOTE]
It's complicated. I don't like Clinton's stance on how to handle gun control, but I think there's plenty of room for interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to allow for limited gun control. It boils down to how much you want to emphasize "well-regulated militia."
As a reminder, though, interpretations of the Constitution have changed [i]time and time again[/i], largely for the better. It isn't a static document at all, like it or not. The "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment is limited by the ruling of [I]Everson v. Board of Education[/I], which insisted that there be a "wall of separation" between church and state. Is that a bad thing? Public school teachers are mostly prohibited from holding prayer sessions in the classroom, even though the First Amendment [i]guarantees[/i] the free exercise of religion. Is that not technically a restriction of free exercise of religion? Absolutely, it is, you're literally prohibiting someone from practicing their religion in a public space, and it doesn't require Congress to pass any laws respecting a religion - individuals can do it. The literal wording of the First Amendment doesn't imply that teacher-led prayer in schools should be prohibited, but we've changed our interpretation of it to say that government [I]as a whole[/I] shouldn't respect any specific religion, rather than limiting it to the literal phrasing that suggests that no [I]laws[/I] should respect any specific religion.
Our interpretation of the Second Amendment [i]will[/i] change over time. It already has, multiple times. In 1876, [I]United States v. Cruikshank[/I] insisted that the right to bear arms was [i]not[/i] a constitutionally-granted right. And again, in 1939, [I]United States v. Miller[/I] defined that the federal government could limit any weapon types with no "reasonable relationship" to operating a well-regulated militia. This was related to the National Firearms Act of 1934, which mandated registration of certain firearms and required transfers of those firearms across state lines to be reported to the ATF. Plus excise taxes on the production/purchase of certain firearms - notably fully-automatic Thompsons used by organized crime groups (like the mafia) in the early 1900s.
And then 2008's [I]District of Columbia v. Heller[/I] ran back over a century of precedent on gun rights and reaffirmed the constitutional right to own a firearm.
The interpretation will change. It's done so time and time again. I'll fight tooth and nail against any confiscation or mandatory disposal of firearms, but I'm fine with limitations - and nothing Hillary's [i]actually proposed[/i] involves actual confiscation. Just dumb regulations that don't make a lot of sense when there are [I]far more effective[/I] regulations that wouldn't impact hobbyists.
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51221021]
The problem is, when you start to give your rights away, you aren't going to get them back. When you grant a government a power, it's never going to return that power unless forced to do so. [/QUOTE]
Then explain why, in 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional right to own a firearm when it had been explicitly denied [I]since 1876[/I] - 132 years later and they gave that right back without ever really being "forced to do so."
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51221021]The 2nd isn't the only amendment under attack. The 4th has been repeatedly shat on all in the name of "the war on drugs". And we're "cool" with it because it's combating "criminals"
The problem is, when you start to give your rights away, you aren't going to get them back. When you grant a government a power, it's never going to return that power unless forced to do so.
Also, hah, the UN. The US regularly doesn't give a shit about what the UN has to say, and there's really nothing the UN can do about it, given our security council position.[/QUOTE]
Again - you're just serving a slippery slope here. There's no basis in fact that changing or removing the 2nd Amendment would have an effect on the rest. The majority of countries in the world don't have a constitutional right to bear arms, in fact those who [I]do[/I] are among the biggest offenders of firearm violence.
[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-03-07/u-s-gun-rights-truly-are-american-exceptionalism[/url]
[url]http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/05/how-many-countries-have-gun-rights-enshrined-in-their-constitutions/[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate[/url]
(See: Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, United States, Colombia and more).
This kind of desperate grip to [I]actual tools of war[/I] is paranoid and unproductive.
complacency lead to brexit, we thought it wouldn't happen, it did, don't fuck this up
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;51221331]Current house would chose, new house has to be sworn in before they can vote on anything.
I'm willing to bet the GOP wouldn't chose Hillary or Trump, probably johnson if johnson can play his cards right and play ball with the GOP.[/QUOTE]
Christ Gary Johnson in power would be a fucking disaster if that happened
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51221346]Christ Gary Johnson in power would be a fucking disaster if that happened[/QUOTE]
Considering that the president doesn't have power to do literally anything he wants to do, I doubt that. This would especially be the case if the democrats were to gain control of the senate, since they are ideologically more opposed to some of the crazier parts of his economic ideas than the republicans are. If he were to be the president AND there was a democrat takeover of the senate, the outcome could be pretty good IMO. It is a collective illusion that the president is some kind of a miracle worker who has or should have the power to save the country.
The biggest area where the president could do serious damage is in foreign policy affairs, and do I really have to explain why Hillary and Trump would be disastrous choices? Trump seems insane and unpredictable and prone to "let's put a label on a problem and make up an easy solution for it" -type of thinking, while Hillary would be a continuation of the stupid warhawk idiocy of Bush and Obomber (she's even insane enough to imply a willingness to go into war with Russia, of all things). Not that anyone would listen to me, since it seems the US antiwar movement disappeared off the face of the earth after Obama became president and proceeded to betray the ideals he pretended to support back in 2008 (I guess warhawkishness is unacceptable only if a republican engages in it, or something...).
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51221298]You know what I am curious about? Lets say there is a "miracle", and Trump gets 42 percent, Clinton gets 49, and Gary gets 9. No abs. majority, so House chooses the president.[/QUOTE]
wait what
how is 49% not a majority over 42 and 9
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
how the hell do your elections even work
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51221492]wait what
how is 49% not a majority over 42 and 9
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
how the hell do your elections even work[/QUOTE]
The presidential race requires a true majority or a supermajority - as in 50% or more of electoral college votes. People use the term "majority" to refer to a plurality, when technically majority means half or more of total votes. Plurality means that whoever gets the highest percentage of votes wins - and that could be infinitely small (like 1.01% in a 100-person election).
-snip, late-
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51221492]wait what
how is 49% not a majority over 42 and 9
[editline]18th October 2016[/editline]
how the hell do your elections even work[/QUOTE]
To win presidential elections, a candidate needs to win 270 Electoral College votes. It's where it truly matters.
Abraham Lincoln in 1860 elections won with just 39.8% of the vote, but he won 180 EC votes. Note at the time there were less US states as well some states had less EC votes( then Texas had 4 EC votes, today it has 38), and you only needed to win 152 EC votes. Lincoln won that election through EC vote, which I think is the lowest popular vote with which someone won US presidency.
Well, that was also an evenly split 4 way race, right?
[QUOTE=person11;51221705]Well, that was also an evenly split 4 way race, right?[/QUOTE]
True, but today when such thing happens in European countries, candidates that pass 20% to 30% will get a 2nd run in voting until a candidate wins 50%+1 votes.
In US, win 270 EC votes and you're the president. Even if you win only 1/3 of the popular vote.
I already knew Clinton is going to win this election. After the first national debate, it's set. Plus, all the ads you see everywhere. Trump has no advertising, and the anti-trump ads on youtube for example is painting him with an "evil" image.
It's sad rich corporate-led politicians have to run the US anyway. I wish we could have a common man some day, not have a choice between two bourgeois with interests not of the people.
[QUOTE=juhana;51221465]Considering that the president doesn't have power to do literally anything he wants to do, I doubt that. This would especially be the case if the democrats were to gain control of the senate, since they are ideologically more opposed to some of the crazier parts of his economic ideas than the republicans are. If he were to be the president AND there was a democrat takeover of the senate, the outcome could be pretty good IMO. It is a collective illusion that the president is some kind of a miracle worker who has or should have the power to save the country.
The biggest area where the president could do serious damage is in foreign policy affairs, and do I really have to explain why Hillary and Trump would be disastrous choices? Trump seems insane and unpredictable and prone to "let's put a label on a problem and make up an easy solution for it" -type of thinking, while Hillary would be a continuation of the stupid warhawk idiocy of Bush and Obomber (she's even insane enough to imply a willingness to go into war with Russia, of all things). Not that anyone would listen to me, since it seems the US antiwar movement disappeared off the face of the earth after Obama became president and proceeded to betray the ideals he pretended to support back in 2008 (I guess warhawkishness is unacceptable only if a republican engages in it, or something...).[/QUOTE]
i don't see how gary Johnson would be any decent for foreign policy considering he doesn't even know what Aleppo is
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51226217]i don't see how gary Johnson would be any decent for foreign policy considering he doesn't even know what Aleppo is[/QUOTE]
"Oh no, a politician didn't remember the name of a potentially diplomatically important city in the middle east once, clearly they would be shit at foreign policy because foreign policy is all about remembering the names of cities and their importance at a moment's notice."
I mean, I don't like Johnson but I never understood why that of all things was considered a big blunder. Especially given he's anti-interventionism, which is also probably why many would support him from a foreign policy perspective--because, you know, they agree with his views.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51221492]wait what
how is 49% not a majority over 42 and 9[/QUOTE]
Well, if Hillary gets 49%, Trump gets 42% and Gary gets 9%, then the majority [I](51%)[/I] don't want Hillary, they just don't agree on who they do want instead.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;51226269]"Oh no, a politician didn't remember the name of a potentially diplomatically important city in the middle east once, clearly they would be shit at foreign policy because foreign policy is all about remembering the names of cities and their importance at a moment's notice."
I mean, I don't like Johnson but I never understood why that of all things was considered a big blunder. Especially given he's anti-interventionism, which is also probably why many would support him from a foreign policy perspective--because, you know, they agree with his views.[/QUOTE]
it's been in the news constantly for like the past half decade
either it implies he's ignorant or that he doesn't care about important things
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51221346]Christ Gary Johnson in power would be a fucking disaster if that happened[/QUOTE]
tbh I'd roll the dice and take Johnson over Trump at this point.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.