• Donald Trump, who received draft deferments during Vietnam: "My behavior-correction boarding school
    60 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48643331]They wanted the people to be able to stand up to the government in the case that it should become tyrannical (as Britain had). While I agree that a violent revolution is neither necessary nor possible (and even if one were to occur the military would probably by and large be on the side of the civilians), it seems disingenuous to suggest that they meant people should only own muskets because muskets are all that existed at the time. Obviously they knew firearms technology would keep developing and the people would need to keep up. No, I don't believe civilians should own nuclear weapons or any crazy nonsense like that. But I think that a lot of the current restrictions are too tight and not very well thought out as they seem to affect the wrong people and the wrong types of firearms.[/QUOTE] It amuses me that Americans still cling onto this inaccurate rhetoric that Britain's government during the 1760s was somehow 'tyrannical'. There is a great propensity for hyperbole in America regarding its own history. At any rate, the second amendment was designed to negate the need for America to have a standing army; she'd never, before the First World War, had a professional military and relied on volunteer militias when the time for defence came. Any interpretation to the contrary is patently historically inaccurate and while that doesn't particularly matter, people still hold on to the idea that it was written to provide means of rebellion and use that as historical precedent. Of course the authors of the document knew firearms technology would evolve but they also assumed legislation would as well, not counting on successive governments treating it and them like gods that must never be disobeyed while simultaneously ignoring them Trump however remains a dangerous sociopath and I hope people have the good sense to leave him the fuck alone
Aw, Christ, no, you can't defend that. You literally cannot defend that as not being stupid. I don't care how much of a Conservative racist sexist shithead you are, what Trump just said is fucking indefensible and stupid, you have to admit that, [I]you have to.[/I]
So, The Donald is still a spoiled, punk-ass bitch Don't surprise me one bit
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48642981]And constantly harps on about the 2nd Amendment being about hunting and antique weapons. yeah. Bernie has pretty much lost any if all the support he had from gun rights activist.[/QUOTE] Bernie is one of the sanest people running right now. If I had a pick between a dude banning assault weapons over a guy who has not even a shed of respect for anyone, I'd vote for Sanders. I could care less about him banning assault weapons when the other candidates are either pathetic, or huge ass douchebags.
I was thrilled last night at my meeting. A business I'm getting involved in has people that are semi-right leaning, or at least that's been my impression for how much lip service they give to "god," while clarifying there's nothing wrong with believing differently. Fox News got mentioned twice last night offhand. The main guy always hosting the meetings sounds like a cross of Kevin Costner and Nicholas Cage. Trump's name came up at one point because of his business success though, and despite my impressions of them, the guy had to caveat his approval of Trump's business strategy by pointing out that it's "in spite of him not being the greatest human being." That did me pretty well, seeing some semi-conservatives with enough sense to recognize Trump's bullshit for what it is. It's the booster shot of faith in your fellow man, sorely needed when you're inundated with such a gaggle of mouth breathers.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;48644465][B]It amuses me that Americans still cling onto this inaccurate rhetoric that Britain's government during the 1760s was somehow 'tyrannical'.[/B] There is a great propensity for hyperbole in America regarding its own history. At any rate, the second amendment was designed to negate the need for America to have a standing army; she'd never, before the First World War, had a professional military and relied on volunteer militias when the time for defence came. Any interpretation to the contrary is patently historically inaccurate and while that doesn't particularly matter, people still hold on to the idea that it was written to provide means of rebellion and use that as historical precedent. Of course the authors of the document knew firearms technology would evolve but they also assumed legislation would as well, not counting on successive governments treating it and them like gods that must never be disobeyed while simultaneously ignoring them [/QUOTE] [img]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/gb.png[/img] Also uh, the United States has had an organized standing army since the mid 1800s. And you're completely wrong about the Constitution, so there's that, too. Maybe you should get a clue before you open your mouth again.
Idk how people say trump has been a super savy business leader, he got a multi-million loan from his father and bought a big piece of land in Manhattan before the prices went soaring, any Joe could make millions developing a skyscraper in Manhattan if they could afford it, all he's done since then is rinse and repeat, he buys land in a very expensive part of a city and builds a big building on it and sells office space. It's not fucking macroeconomics, he's a giant landlord, all his other ventures have been huge failures and that's because he can't run something that actually needs management like his airline which he repeatedly bankrupted because he micromanaged them and then killed by giving out free flights and messing with their bookings for his personal uses [editline]9th September 2015[/editline] While he claims the trump brand is worth billions its actually worth only 200M$ His children manage a collection of businesses worth 560+M$, his brand is just him endorsing products, none are actually developed by him He's not a savy business man, he had a lot of very great opportunities handed to him, and he's a half decent actor on TV, and delegates anything important out to his workers. The savy businessman is just a facad
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48642981]And constantly harps on about the 2nd Amendment being about hunting and antique weapons. yeah. Bernie has pretty much lost any if all the support he had from gun rights activist.[/QUOTE] That's nothing compared to the amount of votes Trump has potentially lost. Hispanics and basically any sane person who has ever heard of the shit that pours out of his mouth nonstop. And soon enough military vets if he doesn't shut up.
Imagine a President Trump telling generals in the Department of Defense how to do their job. Let that sink in, because it's a plausible outcome of 2016.
someone will seriously assassinate donald trump if he gets elected. seriously. i can definitely feel it in the air. so many different types of people hate the shit out of him
Well we can have this scenario. Donald Trump becomes president, gets overthrown by the military by being a total dick, and the republican party has been permanently scarred.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48646144]Imagine a President Trump telling generals in the Department of Defense how to do their job. Let that sink in, because it's a plausible outcome of 2016.[/QUOTE] Better than his plan for the department of energy, nominate Palin then have her disolve it. Let that sink in, the federal agency in charge of nuclear issues, nuclear disposal, power management and regulations being dissolved to be left to some faloucy of a free market
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;48646227]Well we can have this scenario. Donald Trump becomes president, gets overthrown by the military by being a total dick, and the republican party has been permanently scarred.[/QUOTE] A military coup in the US would be a disaster not just for our country, but for the whole world. For years and years. Not only would it severely damage our democratic process and trust in the military, it'll destroy international trust in the US's stability.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48646316]A military coup in the US would be a disaster not just for our country, but for the whole world. For years and years. Not only would it severely damage our democratic process and trust in the military, it'll destroy international trust in the US's stability.[/QUOTE] For the record, wasn't serious on that statement, i just hate trump.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48645286][IMG]https://facepunch.com/fp/flags/gb.png[/IMG] Also uh, the United States has had an organized standing army since the mid 1800s. And you're completely wrong about the Constitution, so there's that, too. Maybe you should get a clue before you open your mouth again.[/QUOTE] No need to be so hostile. As soon as the revolutionary war ended, the continental army was disbanded, except for a few men to stand on the western frontier. Presumably the armies you're talking about in the mid 1800s was the regular army which was little more than a militia and was carefully clipped to keep it as small as possible, at 10,000 men, and most of the regiments were volunteers that were disbanded as soon as they weren't needed; that's the pattern throughout American history, a small regular force supplemented by local state militias. That was why the second amendment was enacted. The fact that America had no tradition of a major standing army was a major point in the anti-war platform in 1917.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;48647263]No need to be so hostile. As soon as the revolutionary war ended, the continental army was disbanded, except for a few men to stand on the western frontier. Presumably the armies you're talking about in the mid 1800s was the regular army which was little more than a militia and was carefully clipped to keep it as small as possible, at 10,000 men, and most of the regiments were volunteers that were disbanded as soon as they weren't needed; that's the pattern throughout American history, a small regular force supplemented by local state militias. That was why the second amendment was enacted. The fact that America had no tradition of a major standing army was a major point in the anti-war platform in 1917.[/QUOTE] I believe you forgot the civil war.
Trump is arrogant, self- centered, and can't make his mind up on what he wants. Military school is not military service, hell, with that attitude he has, I doubt military school even helped him. He keeps saying falsehoods, and then attempting to claim reporters are attempting to trick him. It's clear he has no idea what he's doing. Hopefully his supporters notice that soon.
[QUOTE=Deathtrooper2;48652111]I believe you forgot the civil war.[/QUOTE] No the army was quickly dismantled after the civil war again, the same happened after ww1 and 2, its not until the cold war that the US finally had a large standing army, even then its numerically small vs the conscript forces of China or Russia
[QUOTE=EskillV2;48641968]This years american presidential run looks more like a circus festival from over the pond.[/QUOTE] I doesn't look any better on this side, believe me.
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;48642169]I genuinely wish that someone would put this fuck in the dirt already.[/QUOTE] Careful you don't cut yourself on all that edge. I don't like the guy either, but I ain't going to with him dead.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48641948]anyone who votes for or supports trump is an irredeemable idiot[/QUOTE] excellent, I needed a way to prove I was retarded and now I have it
you won't hear a word of this from fox news
[QUOTE=Map in a box;48658153]you won't hear a word of this from fox news[/QUOTE] But Fox News hates Donald Trump
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48658477]But Fox News hates Donald Trump[/QUOTE] no no no absolutely the complete opposite, donald trump is fox news' baby
[QUOTE=Map in a box;48662417]no no no absolutely the complete opposite, donald trump is fox news' baby[/QUOTE] They love someone vindicating what they've said about the dire state of the country especially if all he knows about the dire state of the country came from faux news
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;48642691]did he dam, I want him to win but that could hurt him,.[/QUOTE] I thought so too, but then I thought about it: Most of the people who are that crazy about their "assault weapons" aren't the type who would vote for Bernie anyway, on account of him "BEIN' A SOSH'LIST!"
As far as I can see there are 3 types of gun people, in a nut shell: Guns for defending themselves such as concealed pistols, guns as collections like ww2 guns, and guns for gun-range shooting sports. The last bit is why people don't like Bernie gun policy on banning certain types of guns, Bernie simply forgotten that guns can be toys despite how deadly they are. (well coming from a European perspective I think guns should not be toys because of how deadly they are, either to self-inflicted accidents or potential to kill someone) That is why banning assault rifles for example is just like banning the internet to a lot of gun activists. If the Gun advocates speak with him I think he could work out a better solution that could work for us all really and I would imagine Bernie is one of the few candidates who would listen to people.
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48666967]As far as I can see there are 3 types of gun people, in a nut shell: Guns for defending themselves such as concealed pistols, guns as collections like ww2 guns, and guns for gun-range shooting sports. The last bit is why people don't like Bernie gun policy on banning certain types of guns, Bernie simply forgotten that guns can be toys despite how deadly they are. (well coming from a European perspective I think guns should not be toys because of how deadly they are, either to self-inflicted accidents or potential to kill someone) That is why banning assault rifles for example is just like banning the internet to a lot of gun activists. If the Gun advocates speak with him I think he could work out a better solution that could work for us all really and I would imagine Bernie is one of the few candidates who would listen to people.[/QUOTE] "Guns can be toys" [b]NO[/b], guns are [b]NEVER[/b] to be treated as toys. Anyone with an inkling of gun training is told that a gun is not a toy. Even the backwater rednecks here in Alabama know guns aren't toys
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48666967]As far as I can see there are 3 types of gun people, in a nut shell: Guns for defending themselves such as concealed pistols, guns as collections like ww2 guns, and guns for gun-range shooting sports. The last bit is why people don't like Bernie gun policy on banning certain types of guns, Bernie simply forgotten that guns can be toys despite how deadly they are. (well coming from a European perspective I think guns should not be toys because of how deadly they are, either to self-inflicted accidents or potential to kill someone) That is why banning assault rifles for example is just like banning the internet to a lot of gun activists. If the Gun advocates speak with him I think he could work out a better solution that could work for us all really and I would imagine Bernie is one of the few candidates who would listen to people.[/QUOTE] I personally don't see the appeal in spending money on a device that's just really, really good at putting holes in things from a distance purely for shits and giggles. Also to the people who keep claiming "BUT GUNS ARE SAFE", stop. Guns are not inherently safe. Anything that requires the operator to be (often extensively) educated on how to be safe with it, isn't inherently safe.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.