2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

LuckyLloyd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's a huge outlier to recent polling! Also has a 5% MOE. Apply liberal pinches of salt.

Brian?

Manach wrote: »

Leaving aside the substantive issue of whether or not Clinton broke some of the more draconian/byzantine US security laws*: my understanding that the days of a politicised FBI that was overseen by figures such as J.Edgar are long gone. If there is a reasonable chance of wrongdoing, then the FBI will perform their duty as laid down by legislation : they do not have the luxury of ignoring certain laws if inconvenient unlike the current administration.

* which BTW have seen the largest number of people sent to prison for disclosing information during Obama's term, (offhand from reading Glen Greenwald's book).

The FBI can investigate Clinton, but it's the Justice Department who would indict here. No police force has the power to prosecut.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Except that this is a ridiculously overly simplistic philosophy

If the 'fruits of my labour' are picking gold nuggets that happen to be lying around on the ground of the land that I inherited from my ancestors, and selling them for millions in pure profit

and the fruits of someone else labour is back breaking work for long hours 7 days a week in order to provide a meagre pittance due to a hugely unbalanced economy that is totally out of their control. Here is where most people 'get' that claiming exclusive entitlement to the fruits of one's labour' is woefully simplistic and a flawed basis for an entire economic system

Not all labour is equally hard, not all labour is equally valuable or profitable, but often the least rewarded labour is the most essential for the economy and the survival of the species.

The gold merchant could disappear in the morning, and nobody would care. The Farmers lose their crops and the village starves.

Skylinehead

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ugh. It's honestly hard to say which would be the worse president.

I'd be fairly comfortable saying Cruz would be much worse. They both say lunatic things, but I think Trump is just pandering to the crowd to get elected whereas I get the horrible feeling that Cruz is an evangelical lunatic that actually believes it.

JPNelsforearm

Skylinehead wrote: »

I'd be fairly comfortable saying Cruz would be much worse. They both say lunatic things, but I think Trump is just pandering to the crowd to get elected whereas I get the horrible feeling that Cruz is an evangelical lunatic that actually believes it.

Yep, Cruz and his father are nutjobs....Divine providence for Cruz to be president....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiuhCh-tzWU

What has Trump said that even sails close to that? Trump is only "controversial" because of how much PC culture has actually been embedded in our society at elite and media levels.

Akrasia

Skylinehead wrote: »

I'd be fairly comfortable saying Cruz would be much worse. They both say lunatic things, but I think Trump is just pandering to the crowd to get elected whereas I get the horrible feeling that Cruz is an evangelical lunatic that actually believes it.

I think Trump would be worse in that he suffers from the Dunning Kruger effect and if you give someone that over confident, and that impulsive so much power he could do serious serious damage


Trump thinks he is the smartest guy in every room he is in.

JPNelsforearm

Akrasia wrote: »

I think Trump would be worse in that he suffers from the Dunning Kruger effect and if you give someone that over confident, and that impulsive so much power he could do serious serious damage


Trump thinks he is the smartest guy in every room he is in.

Only he doesnt, hes said countless times he'll hire people to do jobs and roles for him, just two or three days ago he said this in reference to hiring negotiators etc to look at trade deals and foreign relations.


This painting of Trump as a buffoon is laughable, hes spent the least to arrive in first. Utterly decimated the presumptive frontrunner Jeb Bush, completely torpedoed his campaign single handedly.

BoJack Horseman

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

This painting of Trump as a buffoon is laughable.

I'd love to see an across-the-board IQ test among the candidates.
I'd be certain The Donald' would not be near the bottom.

PopePalpatine

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

See there's investing and there's speculating. Rebuilding crumbling infrastructure? That's investing. Gambling on property-price bubbles? That's speculating.

Gambling on property price bubbles and being bailed out when you lose? That's Wall Street.

Speaking of rebuilding crumbling infrastructure, today the OECD (which the USA is a member of) has called on its members to ease off austerity measures and invest in infrastructure to boost their economies.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

How so?

For starters, most states require valid forms of ID in order to purchase the type of gun depicted in the graphic (AR-15), and most guns for that fact. I know I couldn’t buy one in my state (which has just about an equal number of guns owned - 11.3 million, as population - 12.7 million) without a valid ID and background check. Could you buy an AR-15 in your state without an ID?

hatrickpatrick

Manach wrote: »

Leaving aside the substantive issue of whether or not Clinton broke some of the more draconian/byzantine US security laws*: my understanding that the days of a politicised FBI that was overseen by figures such as J.Edgar are long gone. If there is a reasonable chance of wrongdoing, then the FBI will perform their duty as laid down by legislation : they do not have the luxury of ignoring certain laws if inconvenient unlike the current administration.

Ever heard of Aaron Swartz?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Do you really think that the FBI will indict Hillary Clinton during this election year, while Obama Administration controls the Executive Branch of US Government, which includes the FBI and the US Justice Department? And if Hillary wins, it will be her Administration.

I doubt that Cruz can win against Clinton. Although I find Hillary boring and unimaginative, I find Cruz a real sleeper to listen to. Cruz better get an exciting running mate if nominated, or he is lost.

I’m not much on conspiracy theories, but one I’m hearing bandied about by my democrat friends now does make sense.

The Obama camp and the Clinton camp privately despise each other, although they maintain a friendly facade in public. Obama would much prefer a Biden/Warren ticket succeeding him, with Biden serving 4 years, then Warren getting the following 8 years.

With Clinton being the presumptive Democrat candidate, Obama can't outwardly oppose her. But with major red flags hanging over with the Clinton Foundation and her email scandal, Biden was asked to remain in the background but be ready if needed.

The case against Clinton and her loosey-goosey and illegal attitude with Top Secret information cannot be ignored without tremendously hurting democrats in the election. And the same goes for her pay-to-play shenanigans with the Clinton Foundation.

Loretta Lynch will have to bring charges against Clinton because she is probably on Barack Obama’s top of the list of nominees to the Supreme Court. If she fails in her job as Attorney General to indite Clinton on the recommendation of the FBI, her chances of getting confirmed to the SCOTUS will be nil.

End game... Obama wins.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

For starters, most states require valid forms of ID in order to purchase the type of gun depicted in the graphic (AR-15), and most guns for that fact. I know I couldn’t buy one in my state (which has just about an equal number of guns owned - 11.3 million, as population - 12.7 million) without a valid ID and background check. Could you buy an AR-15 in your state without an ID?

I'm quite surprised you can't buy an AR-15 privately without any ID or background check. It's completely legal in most states as far as I'm aware. In fact I thought it was perfectly legal in every state. Am I incorrect?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

I'm quite surprised you can't buy an AR-15 privately without any ID or background check. It's completely legal in most states as far as I'm aware. In fact I thought it was perfectly legal in every state. Am I incorrect?

When you say “privately,” such as between a father and a son, or a person selling one or two guns from his collection, you may be correct on a very limited basis for rifles and shotguns. When selling privately (and legally) in the state of Pennsylvania, all handguns still need to be transferred through a dealer, who must complete a background check on the new owner. But state law does not require a check for private sales of long guns, like shotguns and rifles.

To purchase an AR-15 in Pennsylvania from a licensed dealer, it starts with a background check. The check consists of the presentation of a government-issued photo ID, a form to fill out and a phone call by the dealer to the state police, which cross-references the information with "many different databases," including federal ones, said Maria Finn, press secretary for the state police.

Gun ownership is prohibited for felons, illegal immigrants, those declared mentally defective by the courts and others.

Authorities will arrive and cuff someone on the spot if they have an outstanding warrant.

AR-15 related transfers:

1. Complete long gun AR-15's can be sold from a FFL to someone 18+ yo.
2. Complete long gun AR-15's can be sold privately FTF without a FFL being involved 18+ yo.
3. Bare AR-15 receivers can only be sold from a FFL to someone 21+ yo with only the 4473 form.
4. Bare AR-15 receivers can be sold privately FTF without a FFL being involved.
5. AR-15 handguns can only be sold from a FFL to someone 21+ yo, 4473+PSP forms.
6. AR-15 handguns can only be transferred at a FFL(21yo) 4473+PSP forms, or Sheriff(18yo) PSP form only for private transfers.

Also, private sales of AR-15's in PA are minimal, as they aren't prudent and can leave the seller open to some serious problems down the road. The majority of AR-15's are purchased with a licensed gun dealer's involvement.

(I do not own an AR-15, but my son-in-law does. He is also a police detective, and recommends I get one for self defense.)

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

When you say “privately,” such as between a father and a son, or a person selling one or two guns from his collection, you may be correct on a very limited basis for rifles and shotguns. When selling privately (and legally) in the state of Pennsylvania, all handguns still need to be transferred through a dealer, who must complete a background check on the new owner. But state law does not require a check for private sales of long guns, like shotguns and rifles.

To purchase an AR-15 in Pennsylvania from a licensed dealer, it starts with a background check. The check consists of the presentation of a government-issued photo ID, a form to fill out and a phone call by the dealer to the state police, which cross-references the information with "many different databases," including federal ones, said Maria Finn, press secretary for the state police.

Gun ownership is prohibited for felons, illegal immigrants, those declared mentally defective by the courts and others.

Authorities will arrive and cuff someone on the spot if they have an outstanding warrant.

AR-15 related transfers:

1. Complete long gun AR-15's can be sold from a FFL to someone 18+ yo.
2. Complete long gun AR-15's can be sold privately FTF without a FFL being involved 18+ yo.
3. Bare AR-15 receivers can only be sold from a FFL to someone 21+ yo with only the 4473 form.
4. Bare AR-15 receivers can be sold privately FTF without a FFL being involved.
5. AR-15 handguns can only be sold from a FFL to someone 21+ yo, 4473+PSP forms.
6. AR-15 handguns can only be transferred at a FFL(21yo) 4473+PSP forms, or Sheriff(18yo) PSP form only for private transfers.

Also, private sales of AR-15's in PA are minimal, as they aren't prudent and can leave the seller open to some serious problems down the road. The majority of AR-15's are purchased with a licensed gun dealer's involvement.

(I do not own an AR-15, but my son-in-law does. He is also a police detective, and recommends I get one for self defense.)

So I'm correct to say that private sales of ar-15s require no ID or background check.

I didn't ask about gun dealers.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

So I'm correct to say that private sales of ar-15s require no ID or background check.

I didn't ask about gun dealers.

I guess so, but try and find an AR-15 for sale from a private party in Pennsylvania that doesn’t go throw through an FFL dealer. I think your chances are better finding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. And please don’t say you can find them at gun shows. I’ve been to a number of gun shows and have never seen a private AR-15 for sale.

BoJack Horseman

Global paedophile network administrator & golden throne enthusiast Pope Francis has deemed The Donald as 'not a christian' for his immigration stance!

I can't imagine the Presbyterian Trump really caring!

Franny is consistent though.
He is very supportive of the millions entering Europe.

If opposing this makes one not a christian then grand....

eire4

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm disinclined to afford much importance to polls. Sanders supporters are mostly younger people who are much less likely to actually turn up and vote than their older counterparts.

Therein lies part of the problem lack of voter engagement and to be fair it is far from just younger voters. When voter turnout in the mid 50's% is considered a good turnout then enough said about how pathetic that is and how dysfunctional the system is when so few actually vote never mind the total embarrassment that is mid term election voter turnout in the US.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Therein lies part of the problem lack of voter engagement and to be fair it is far from just younger voters. When voter turnout in the mid 50's% is considered a good turnout then enough said about how pathetic that is and how dysfunctional the system is when so few actually vote never mind the total embarrassment that is mid term election voter turnout in the US.

Who knew the difference between 60% voter turnout and 50% voter turnout causes one to enter the Pathetic Zone.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Who knew the difference between 60% voter turnout and 50% voter turnout causes one to enter the Pathetic Zone.

Actually The US has not seen a 60% voter turnot since the 1960's. The embarrassment that is voter turnout in the US is pathetic and is an indictment of how dysfunctional the system is.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Actually The US has not seen a 60% voter turnot since the 1960's. The embarrassment that is voter turnout in the US is pathetic and is an indictment of how dysfunctional the system is.

And Ireland & U.K.’s 60% rate is so very awesome? Who knew 10% meant sooooooooo much.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

And Ireland & U.K.’s 60% rate is so very awesome? Who knew 10% meant sooooooooo much.

No I don't think voter turnout of 60% is good either or as you say awesome. But for the record the voter turnout at the last Irish general election was 70%. That certainly is a whole lot better then 55% which is what the turnout was in the US in the 2012 presidential election. For the record the turnout in the recent British general election was 66%.


Personally I am for a system which actually works for the best interests of the vast majority of the people and included in that is making every effort to get people involved in the process and thus increasing voter turnout. Make election day a national holiday. Automatically register citizens when they reach voting age and or same day voter registration as examples.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

No I don't think voter turnout of 60% is good either or as you say awesome. But for the record the voter turnout at the last Irish general election was 70%. That certainly is a whole lot better then 55% which is what the turnout was in the US in the 2012 presidential election. For the record the turnout in the recent British general election was 66%.


Personally I am for a system which actually works for the best interests of the vast majority of the people and included in that is making every effort to get people involved in the process and thus increasing voter turnout. Make election day a national holiday. Automatically register citizens when they reach voting age and or same day voter registration as examples.

And I would rather people that weren’t educated to the positions, policies and viewpoints of politicians not vote at all, which is pretty much the case now. Making voting compulsory like is done in Belgium, and to a lesser extent Australia, would only make the election process here an even bigger popularity contest then it already is.

I think most of us here are fine with the low voter turnout because those that do vote are generally educated to the candidates positions. Well, Republicans anyway. Democrats rely on the low information voters in order to win.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

So I'm correct to say that private sales of ar-15s require no ID or background check.

I didn't ask about gun dealers.

I guess so, but try and find an AR-15 for sale from a private party in Pennsylvania that doesn t go throw through an FFL dealer. I think your chances are better finding a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. And please don t say you can find them at gun shows. I ve been to a number of gun shows and have never seen a private AR-15 for sale.

I'm enjoying a good nit pick here, I know. So given the fact that it is perfectly legal to buy an AR-15 privately or from a gun show without showing any ID, do you stand by your earlier post that the info graphic earlier was "completely false"?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

For starters, most states require valid forms of ID in order to purchase the type of gun depicted in the graphic (AR-15), and most guns for that fact. I know I couldn’t buy one in my state (which has just about an equal number of guns owned - 11.3 million, as population - 12.7 million) without a valid ID and background check. Could you buy an AR-15 in your state without an ID?

As a matter of fact, Anderson Cooper's crew had little problem acquiring a Bushmaster XM-15 without names, paperwork, or ID. In Greenville.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/buying-guns-no-questions-asked/

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

And I would rather people that weren’t educated to the positions, policies and viewpoints of politicians not vote at all, which is pretty much the case now. Making voting compulsory like is done in Belgium, and to a lesser extent Australia, would only make the election process here an even bigger popularity contest then it already is.

I think most of us here are fine with the low voter turnout because those that do vote are generally educated to the candidates positions. Well, Republicans anyway. Democrats rely on the low information voters in order to win.

So first when I initially describe low voter turnout in the US as pathetic and a result of the government not working in a manner that is in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans you respond with mockery:


"Who knew the difference between 60% voter turnout and 50% voter turnout causes one to enter the Pathetic Zone."




Then when I point out that the US hasn't seen even a 60% turnout since the 1960's you respond with false information suggesting turnout in Britain and in Ireland is 60% and of course more mockery:


"And Ireland & U.K.’s 60% rate is so very awesome? Who knew 10% meant sooooooooo much."


Next I point out that your above information is incorrect so you switch tack again and bring up compulsory voting which nowhere once did I advocate. I simply have advocated for making voting easier such as making election day a national holiday and automatically registering citizens once they reach voting age and or same day registration. You though would rather people who you feel are not properly educated to the policies/positions of politicans vote.
Now aside from the fact that how does one decide when a person is properly educated enough to be allowed to vote and who gets to make this decision this completely misses the point I am putting forth that one of the reasons so many people do not turnout is they are very well aware that the government as currently in operation has become a plutocratic oligarchy and have given up on the system as they are very well educated as to the positions of the people who have bought the various representatives and senators etc.


I disagee I do not think that most Americans are fine with low voter turnour and a government system that is corrupt and dysfunctional and does not work in the interests of the vast majority of Americans.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

So first when I initially describe low voter turnout in the US as pathetic and a result of the government not working in a manner that is in the best interests of the vast majority of Americans you respond with mockery:


"Who knew the difference between 60% voter turnout and 50% voter turnout causes one to enter the Pathetic Zone."




Then when I point out that the US hasn't seen even a 60% turnout since the 1960's you respond with false information suggesting turnout in Britain and in Ireland is 60% and of course more mockery:


"And Ireland & U.K.’s 60% rate is so very awesome? Who knew 10% meant sooooooooo much."


Next I point out that your above information is incorrect so you switch tack again and bring up compulsory voting which nowhere once did I advocate. I simply have advocated for making voting easier such as making election day a national holiday and automatically registering citizens once they reach voting age and or same day registration. You though would rather people who you feel are not properly educated to the policies/positions of politicans vote.
Now aside from the fact that how does one decide when a person is properly educated enough to be allowed to vote and who gets to make this decision this completely misses the point I am putting forth that one of the reasons so many people do not turnout is they are very well aware that the government as currently in operation has become a plutocratic oligarchy and have given up on the system as they are very well educated as to the positions of the people who have bought the various representatives and senators etc.


I disagee I do not think that most Americans are fine with low voter turnour and a government system that is corrupt and dysfunctional and does not work in the interests of the vast majority of Americans.

Isn’t the fact the Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are doing so very well at the current time in the election (and Barack Obama back in 2008 to some extent) lay to waste the boogieman myth of a plutocratic oligarchy?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

I'm enjoying a good nit pick here, I know. So given the fact that it is perfectly legal to buy an AR-15 privately or from a gun show without showing any ID, do you stand by your earlier post that the info graphic earlier was "completely false"?

Okay I concede. It’s only 99% false.

I went online looking for a privately sold AR-15 in Pennsylvania that would be processed without going through a FFL dealership. No luck. But on the bright side I was able to find a fully operational Hawker Siddeley Mk58 Hunter fighter/bomber here for sale in which I didn’t need a valid ID in order to purchase.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Isn’t the fact the Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are doing so very well at the current time in the election (and Barack Obama back in 2008 to some extent) lay to waste the boogieman myth of a plutocratic oligarchy?

No.


Sadly the ever increasing control of the US government by powerful individuals and corporations is very much still the order of the day. I wish the US lurching towards being a plutocratic oligrachy was indeed a myth. It is however all too much a reality.

Thargor

Amerika wrote: »

Okay I concede. It’s only 99% false.

I went online looking for a privately sold AR-15 in Pennsylvania that would be processed without going through a FFL dealership. No luck. But on the bright side I was able to find a fully operational Hawker Siddeley Mk58 Hunter fighter/bomber here for sale in which I didn’t need a valid ID in order to purchase.

But you wont find them online Amerika, you will find them at a gunshow, if you want to buy an AR-15 with no ID you simply drive to the nearest gun show and buy one, do you understand now? Do you need it explained to you further?