Let me rephrase : under Obama they tried to put some reasonable limits to it all, in the general direction of what Australia did but in very small steps, and the republicans tried to stop even the most needed reforms. Seriously, asking for the salesman to check if the person he's selling to isn't listed as a dangerous psychiatric patient is pretty obvious.
[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.
- Thread starter onejayhawk
- Start date
- Status
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Actually, the straightforward reading of the constitution makes it clear that an arms-bearing citizenry being well-regulated is a necessity for a free state. So imposing stricter limitations on gun ownership is actually what is in line with the constitution. To oppose a well regulated armed citizenry is to be against the words of the second amendment. There seems to be broad agreement across the political spectrum that "well-regulated" means eliminating things like private sale loopholes and stricter background checks, but these things are never taken up by Republicans.
The key to reading the Second Amendment lies in understanding that the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" has meaning, and that not just a militia but a well regulated one is necessary to the security of a free State.. Not understanding that is in fact illogical. So I think Adrien worded his post just fine.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
There's a difference between aristocrats and rich people. Lots of left-wing types who despise Cameron adore Beyoncé, and she's a deranged millionaire narcissist of the first order. You might argue that left-wingers hate inbred, chinless, blue bloods, but it's not my experience that they've ever felt the need to disguise this contempt. I mean, I didn't, just there, and I've no particular fear of a backlash for it. Left-wingers tend to be overt in their contempt. If anything, too overt; if they were a bit better about disguising their contempt for old white guys in trucker caps, we might not be looking at a Trump presidency. You have to make some impressive leaps of imagination to find dog-whistles of real significance in progressive discourse- while conservative discourse is flatly incomprehensible without a working grasp of the second, unspoken meaning of words.
zxcvbob
Emperor
Do you really not know the historical meaning of "well regulated", or are you just being dishonest? Well regulated == well functioning, like the old "regulator" clocks.
Here's a reference: http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Debatable, given the meaning of "Regulator" in an eighteenth century American context. Seems pretty clear that Americans of that era were aware of the use of "regulate" to mean "according to consistent and clearly-stated laws", whether or not they meant it in the context of the Second Amendment.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,060
There are two things that strike me as disingenuous (not to say worse) in the whole ongoing american argument about the 2nd amendment.
One is the time and effort spent on arguing about the interpretation of that old phrase. It's actually very easy to figure out what the expression meant during that tile: just look at the practice of that time. How did they "regulate" (in the modern sense) the ownership and use of weapons? What they did tells us what they meant. And makes it obvious that they mean little or no restrictions to it.
The other is the fixation on looking at the issue primarily according to a over two hundred years old text. Ignoring that what matters in deciding politics is the relative power of the opposing fields now, not that in the past. If there is a clear majority pressuring for restricting rights to use weapons, that side will win. If there is a majority opposing restrictions on using weapons, that side will win. It is the now, not the past, that matters.
One is the time and effort spent on arguing about the interpretation of that old phrase. It's actually very easy to figure out what the expression meant during that tile: just look at the practice of that time. How did they "regulate" (in the modern sense) the ownership and use of weapons? What they did tells us what they meant. And makes it obvious that they mean little or no restrictions to it.
The other is the fixation on looking at the issue primarily according to a over two hundred years old text. Ignoring that what matters in deciding politics is the relative power of the opposing fields now, not that in the past. If there is a clear majority pressuring for restricting rights to use weapons, that side will win. If there is a majority opposing restrictions on using weapons, that side will win. It is the now, not the past, that matters.
Actually, there were massive restrictions on gun ownership at the founding. Entire classes of people were subject to gun bans. It is pretty obvious, based on founding era practices, that governments have massive power to ban guns.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
No it hasn't. Gun crime was rare even with the Port Arthur massacre. But what we're seeing is an uptick in gun crime due to illegal weapons. If you take out the four most violent cities in America then gun crimes are rather low.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Page 453.
Wow.
EDIT, oh, Real Discussion thread.
Uhm.
I have nothing. I'm just numb about the whole thing.
Trump has at least pulled back on a few nasty promises, but his advisor choice leaves a lot to be desired.
He said lately that global warming might have some human cause. It's a long shot from there to being acceptable for me.
That's all I got.
Wow.
EDIT, oh, Real Discussion thread.
Uhm.
I have nothing. I'm just numb about the whole thing.
Trump has at least pulled back on a few nasty promises, but his advisor choice leaves a lot to be desired.
He said lately that global warming might have some human cause. It's a long shot from there to being acceptable for me.
That's all I got.
Just read a an article about how some group of "computer experts" is saying they have found "persuasive" evidence that voting machines in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were hacked and the results were changed in Trump's favor. They are urging Clinton to contest the results in those states.
You guys think anything will come of this? Will Clinton challenge the election results? If so, what do you think the political fallout would be? Finally, what do you think would happen if it turns out the machines were hacked and Trump's election victory is overturned? Would his supporters accept it, or would they claim this was a fabricated conspiracy in order to deny Trump the presidency? I personally think it would be the latter, which is why I think Clinton shouldn't challenge the results no matter how strong the evidence is for the good of the country. Challenging the results at this stage could cause massive civil unrest that would have a very real potential of escalating into full-blown civil war. I say it would just be better to let Trump have his four years and be done with it so we can move on from there.
You guys think anything will come of this? Will Clinton challenge the election results? If so, what do you think the political fallout would be? Finally, what do you think would happen if it turns out the machines were hacked and Trump's election victory is overturned? Would his supporters accept it, or would they claim this was a fabricated conspiracy in order to deny Trump the presidency? I personally think it would be the latter, which is why I think Clinton shouldn't challenge the results no matter how strong the evidence is for the good of the country. Challenging the results at this stage could cause massive civil unrest that would have a very real potential of escalating into full-blown civil war. I say it would just be better to let Trump have his four years and be done with it so we can move on from there.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
... There's really actual evidence that machines were hacked?
Voter fraud has historically been a near non-presence in the USA.
It surprises me.
Voter fraud has historically been a near non-presence in the USA.
It surprises me.
According to this supposed group of computer experts. From what I read though, their claims haven't been investigated yet so no one knows how valid their claim might be.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
As much as I hate Trump, I have a hard time believing he didn't legitimately win the electoral college. I think people are grasping for straws out of desperation. There are "computer experts" that claim the contrary when Democrats win stuff.
Trump is a known serial fraudster. And people act like Trump manipulating the vote is somehow beneath him. Duh.
Everybody keeps wondering how all the media outlets could have been so wrong with their polls. Hey, maybe it's because the election was rigged, and the polls were RIGHT all along. When did I post that there was a glaring lack of transparency into the ballot counting? Like 2 days after the election was over?
Everybody keeps wondering how all the media outlets could have been so wrong with their polls. Hey, maybe it's because the election was rigged, and the polls were RIGHT all along. When did I post that there was a glaring lack of transparency into the ballot counting? Like 2 days after the election was over?
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
He did threaten to sue a small polling area keeping open to letting people cast their votes. I'm not sure whether he followed through on it.
And note how it is Jill Stein calling for the recount. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is happening there: if Hillary contests the election, then Trump will threaten to re-open the investigation on her.
Trump is a lying, defrauding, racketeering mob boss who has raped the U.S. democracy in unprecedented fashion.
Trump is a lying, defrauding, racketeering mob boss who has raped the U.S. democracy in unprecedented fashion.
Kozmos
Jew Detective
Let's not get ahead of ourselves by thinking democracy was untainted before. It is the village bicycle.
Wow, you just ran with this whole thing didn't you? Note that no one has even seen what this supposed evidence is, yet you already have Trump convicted of voter fraud. Until a formal investigation is completed we don't know if the people claiming to have evidence of hacked voting machines really do have anything that indicates it even happened, let alone whether or not it was connected to the Trump campaign. If it did happen, it could have been just about anyone other than the Clinton campaign that could have done it for any number of reasons.
How about we wait and see what actually comes of this before getting all outraged? I mean, if this turns out to be a whole lot of nothing, you're going to look back on this post and feel pretty silly for getting so worked up.
Also, your accusation that Trump is the one preventing Hillary from contesting the election doesn't make a whole lot of sense on closer examination. If there is evidence of election tampering and voter fraud and it's connected to Trump, she would have nothing to fear since the results of the election would be overturned and Trump would never be sworn in as president. Not to mention he'd be arrested as well. It would be pretty hard for him to reopen an investigation on her from a jail cell while she is the one being sworn in as president. Hillary is smart enough to understand this, so if someone brought her solid evidence of election tampering in Trump's favor, she'd run with it. Especially since she still has Obama to back her for another two months.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
No "actual evidence" in of itself. Basically a professor of Computer Science at the University of Michigan was looking through voter statistics in the state of Wisconsin - a state Clinton unexpectedly lost by 27,000 votes - found that Clinton received 7% fewer votes in counties that used electronic voting compared to counties that did not. The problem is persistent enough to raise eyebrows, especially considering that if those were "uncounted votes" they could add up to 30,000 votes in a crucial state that she would have needed to go her way, and considering, according to this same professor, that the voting machines in question are outdated and vulnerable to security attacks, and also considering all the accusations by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security regarding Russia-backed hacking of the DNC. It's nothing concrete, but, perhaps worth looking into.
And as to why Clinton isn't demanding a recount. Tensions were already extremely high as it were, especially with Trump poisoning the well with his comments about election rigging in the lead-up to the vote. If Clinton challenged the election, and it turned out in her favor, we might actually have a Civil War on our hands. Or at the very least she would have little-to-no legitimacy going into her term in office. Even so, she wouldn't just have to flip Wisconsin, but we'd moreover have to find the same kind of fraud and with enough of a change to flip at the very least the states of Michigan and Pennsylvania as well. What happens if they do find vote tampering in Wisconsin, enough to flip the state, but find none in the other two? She still loses, makes herself look like an ass, and tarnishes the legitimacy of Trump and thereby of the whole governmental system in the process. It's just not worth the risk. And I can absolutely see Clinton refusing to do this in service of what she perceives as the greater good for the country.
Last edited:
Exactly my thoughts on the matter. If Clinton has any love for this nation (which I am certain she does) she will not challenge the results of the election no matter how much she might want to. This is one of those situations where you just have to bite the bullet and sweep this under the rug for the good of the nation, possibly the world as well. Think about it: what kind of damage would be done to our network of alliances and partnerships that maintain relative global stability if our government starts being viewed as illegitimate because of fraudulent elections?
- Status
Similar threads
