The biased Media vs Trump!

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

How powerful do you think the ‘supposed all-powerful’ NRA really is? I know it’s the bogeyman to most on the Left, but did you know the NRA doesn’t even spend as much as the Teachers Unions do on lobbying, and half as much as the dairy industry does? The reason more gun control doesn't happen is because the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE don't want it.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/120415-westwood-lobbying1.png

And while we're talking about the NRA, lets look at a comparison of political donations. Pay close attention to the SEIU and even Planned Parenthood.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/120415-westwood-lobbying2.png

From Open Secrets, your source..

The term "outside spending" refers to political expenditures made by groups or individuals independently of, and not coordinated with, candidates' committees. Groups in this category range from conventional party committees to the more controversial super PACs and 501(c) "dark money" organizations.

On outside spending the NRA has invested $42.8 million in 2016. Planned parenthood has spent $14 million. In 2014, the Sierra club for spent $4.3m on campaign contributions and $1.6m on outside spending; The NRA spent $0.98m on campaign contributions... and $27m on outside spending.

So no: don't pretend like they don't spend buckets of money to block firearm legislation.

Billy86

Overheal wrote: »

From Open Secrets, your source..

The term "outside spending" refers to political expenditures made by groups or individuals independently of, and not coordinated with, candidates' committees. Groups in this category range from conventional party committees to the more controversial super PACs and 501(c) "dark money" organizations.

On outside spending the NRA has invested $42.8 million in 2016. Planned parenthood has spent $14 million. In 2014, the Sierra club for spent $4.3m on campaign contributions and $1.6m on outside spending. The NRA spent $0.98m on campaign contributions... and $27m on outside spending.

So no: don't pretend like they don't spend buckets of money to block firearm legislation.

So what you're saying is Amerika's comment was... well... untrue? Would that be correct?

Overheal

Billy86 wrote: »

So what you're saying is Amerika's comment was... well... untrue? Would that be correct?

Well, I'd rate the claim half true at best. They don't spend a lot of money at the Hill lobbying congress or contributing to individual campaigns, that doesn't seem to be their tactic. Instead, they pour money into advocacy activities and groups, such as PACs, that either promote/attack candidates on their behalf; often perpetuating the social myth that the government is going to take your guns any minute now.

Also, however, I can't prove any malice in generating such a misleading statement, that ignored where 87% of their political spending goes.

Amerika

Calina wrote: »

Really? Given the number of kids who accidentally kill people with guns?

Look. I don't care what you contend. But your firearms related death rates are not miniscule in per capita terms compared to other countries. The only place in Europe that even comes close to you is probably Finland who, while they don't have a second amendment, do have similar views about the right to hold guns.

What you are saying is that people get killed with guns and that's alright because that's a price to pay for having guns. Guns matter more than people being killed.

And that was the underlying point of what I said about NRA power because the US is prepared to accept the shooting dead of kids in infant schools as a price that is adequate for the right to bear arms. And the only way you can possibly think that is because the NRA keeps feeding that narrative.

In that context, I find it hilarious that you guys talk about the media being biased against Trump. You're just not equipped to realise just how much of a free run he has gotten. If the media weren't biased in favour of Trump, your candidate might be someone competent. And tbh, I'd quite like that not because I dislike Hillary Clinton one way or the other but you have had 8 years of Democratic presidency and it is not good that a country stultifies in political terms.

There's that evil bogeyman, the NRA again.

Records from a few years ago indicate only about 67% of murders in the US are committed by firearms.

58% of all murderers had at least one felony conviction, 70% had other convictions, and 81% had arrest records. These arrest records either make it illegal to own or by a gun, or are serious impediments to legally buying guns. Therefore a good percentage of murders with guns are done by illegal obtained guns. Gun control would do nothing to stop that factor.

But Hillary wants more gun control... Anything for a vote, I guess.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Records from a few years ago indicate only about 67% of murders in the US are committed by firearms.

I'm just going to quote this and leave it at that.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

There's that evil bogeyman, the NRA again.

Records from a few years ago indicate only about 67% of murders in the US are committed by firearms.

Is that all? Sure maybe we should loosen up restrictions to bring that up a bit!

58% of all murderers had at least one felony conviction, 70% had other convictions, and 81% had arrest records. These arrest records either make it illegal to own or by a gun, or are serious impediments to legally buying guns. Therefore a good percentage of murders with guns are done by illegal obtained guns. Gun control would do nothing to stop that factor.

But Hillary wants more gun control... Anything for a vote, I guess.

So what you're suggesting is, is that it is too easy for people who shouldn't be obtaining firearms to obtain firearms, therefore it's nonsensical to increase restrictions and close loopholes to further impede those who shouldn't have firearms from obtaining firearms? Brilliant stuff.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Is that all? Sure maybe we should loosen up restrictions to bring that up a bit!

No, but keeping dangerous criminals off the streets would help.

So what you're suggesting is, is that it is too easy for people who shouldn't be obtaining firearms to obtain firearms, therefore it's nonsensical to increase restrictions and close loopholes to further impede those who shouldn't have firearms from obtaining firearms? Brilliant stuff.

You seem to ignore the fact that there are so many guns out there, and that making it harder for law abiding citizens to get firearms under their rights will cure all evils.

Water John

Accusing HC of looking for votes by gun control is a bit rich.
Some people actually stand for something, on occasions.

Billy86

The answer was right in front of us all along - throw more people in jail, that's exactly what American society needs!

Amerika

Water John wrote: »

Accusing HC of looking for votes by gun control is a bit rich.
Some people actually stand for something, on occasions.

Perhaps. So, take away people right to legally obtain firearms, but bring in criminals and terrorists into the country, and allow abortions up the day the baby is born... Like you said... stand for something.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

No, but keeping dangerous criminals off the streets would help.

we already have the largest prison population in the world, by quite a margin.

You seem to ignore the fact that there are so many guns out there, and that making it harder for law abiding citizens to get firearms under their rights will cure all evils.

I forgot I could walk down the sidewalk and pick up 3 or 4 discarded weapons on the way home. How silly of me.

terribly funny, your positions: against "making it harder for law abiding citizens" to get a deadly weapons; for "making it harder for law abiding citizens" to cast a ballot.

Personally I don't know why anyone would be against closing loopholes that make it easier for felons and terrorists alike to get their hands on deadly weapons.

KingBrian2

Water John wrote: »

Accusing HC of looking for votes by gun control is a bit rich.
Some people actually stand for something, on occasions.

Trump stands up for Business. You might chose to see him as corrupt businessperson but Hillary does not represent a lot of aspiring entrepreneurs. Many voters gravitate towards his rhetoric because he fulfills what they are looking for on the business end of the spectrum. Trump has said he will turn around the American economy without raising taxes so for his supporters they like what they hear. The point i'm getting at is they see Trump as standing for them.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Personally I don't know why anyone would be against closing loopholes that make it easier for felons and terrorists alike to get their hands on deadly weapons.

You already need to go through background check to purchase most guns. The remainder of guns obtained is mostly comprised of inheritance or gifts (and most gifts were legal purchases with background checks). Why does everyone here seem to think I can just walk into my local Walmart, throw down some cash, and walk out with an AR-15? I had to get a background check on all but one of my guns. One I didn't as it was inherited and the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1945 didn't require my father to get a background check when he got it.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

You already need to go through background check to purchase most guns. The remainder of guns obtained is mostly comprised of inheritance or gifts (and most gifts were legal purchases with background checks). Why does everyone here seem to think I can just walk into my local Walmart, throw down some cash, and walk out with an AR-15? I had to get a background check on all but one of my guns. One I didn't as it was inherited and the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1945 didn't require my father to get a background check when he got it.

Do you have a stat for that? You're also blatantly ignoring Gun Shows

^ Look particularly from 1:40 onward..

PopePalpatine

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump stands up for Business. You might chose to see him as corrupt businessperson but Hillary does not represent a lot of aspiring entrepreneurs. Many voters gravitate towards his rhetoric because he fulfills what they are looking for on the business end of the spectrum. Trump has said he will turn around the American economy without raising taxes so for his supporters they like what they hear. The point i'm getting at is they see Trump as standing for them.

Oh look, another Trump fluff piece.

But then again, who wouldn't aspire to go through six bankruptcies yet still get offered millions in credit? Who wouldn't want to be born to a dad who could bail their failing casino out by spending millions there?

K-9

Lt Dan wrote: »

The Sunday Times/The Times have a huge provocative poster across from Moran's Hotel on Talbot Street Dublin with a picture of Trump, with the words, "dangerous", "arrogant", "Predator", "unconventional"

Least we know where they stand

Remember the effort people went to in tripping over themselves over Obama? They rejected Hillary during the Democratic run, what changed?

Your first paragraph answers the second!

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

How powerful do you think the ‘supposed all-powerful’ NRA really is? I know it’s the bogeyman to most on the Left, but did you know the NRA doesn’t even spend as much as the Teachers Unions do on lobbying, and half as much as the dairy industry does? The reason more gun control doesn't happen is because the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE don't want it.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/120415-westwood-lobbying1.png

And while we're talking about the NRA, lets look at a comparison of political donations. Pay close attention to the SEIU and even Planned Parenthood.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/120415-westwood-lobbying2.png

It isn't about money with the NRA, it's a rabid, vociferous base that gives it its power. You know this so there's no point in me going over it with you.

Politicians are scared ****less of taking them on because of their watch list.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

I believe we might actually have more private guns than citizens in the US at this point. I contend the fact that our violent gun crimes as a percentage to the total number of guns in private hands being so miniscule is rather remarkable, and a clear indication that people AREN'T stupid.

But I thought gun crime was a big problem?

Christy42

I still can't get over the fact that Amerika thought only was the correct word to put before 67% of homicides are gun related.

Or you know that they once tried to slip in Donald Trump as an expert source verifying that the first debate moderator was biased. I mean just because the topics move on does not mean we forget what happened in discussions earlier. There is a reason your posts are met with large doses of skepticism.

K-9

It shows how the NRA control and have won the gun debate. It isn't about logic or common sense anymore and that suits the NRA just fine.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Do you have a stat for that? You're also blatantly ignoring Gun Shows

^ Look particularly from 1:40 onward..

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-gun-homicides-in-the-US-are-committed-using-legally-owned-firearms

A little homework for you... What percentage of guns purchased come from gun shows? And part 2, what percentage of guns purchased at gun shows are purchased from non-licensed gun brokers, as licensed gun brokers are required to preform background checks?

I'll let you tell everyone since everybody discounts everything I say and the backup for everything I provide.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

It isn't about money with the NRA, it's a rabid, vociferous base that gives it its power. You know this so there's no point in me going over it with you.

Politicians are scared ****less of taking them on because of their watch list.

You mean the vociferous base like these folk?

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

It shows how the NRA control and have won the gun debate. It isn't about logic or common sense anymore and that suits the NRA just fine.

If they won the debate without spending boatloads of money, it is because the majority of the people are behind it.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-gun-homicides-in-the-US-are-committed-using-legally-owned-firearms

A little homework for you... What percentage of guns purchased come from gun shows? And part 2, what percentage of guns purchased at gun shows are purchased from non-licensed gun brokers, as licensed gun brokers are required to preform background checks?

I'll let you tell everyone since everybody discounts everything I say and the backup for everything I provide.

Overheal asked for your stats first.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

Overheal asked for your stats first.

The stats he asked for are in the link I provided, at the top of my response. The question about gun show purchases is another subject.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

The stats he asked for are in the link I provided, at the top of my response. The question about gun show purchases is another subject.

No the gun show purchasing rate was the stat I asked for. Your reskinned yahoo answers page didn't cover that in any form.

Amerika wrote: »

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-gun-homicides-in-the-US-are-committed-using-legally-owned-firearms

A little homework for you... What percentage of guns purchased come from gun shows? And part 2, what percentage of guns purchased at gun shows are purchased from non-licensed gun brokers, as licensed gun brokers are required to preform background checks?

I'll let you tell everyone since everybody discounts everything I say and the backup for everything I provide.

Assuming it's either,

High: are you then suggesting we definitely should close such a gaping loophole? Or

Low: are you agreeing that, 'since it's statistically insignificant,' etc, why not just close the loophole and end the debate on said loophole?

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

If they won the debate without spending boatloads of money, it is because the majority of the people are behind it.

In fairness Overheal provided stats that show they do provide significant funds.

If you call winning the debate, using paranoia, fear and irrational behaviors, well, that isn't the way I like serious social policy decided.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

You mean the vociferous base like these folk?

You'd have to be amazed at how dim some are, or at least assume others are in hoping they've forgotten the likes of this already:











Now who wants to be the first to play 'guess the armed standoff with federal authorities these are from'?

K-9

Those are the type of people who get a bit tetchy when big Government comes near their land, so the Trump wall would be quite the dilemma!

8-10

Amerika wrote: »

It Trump wins or loses, he’s still right, the election is rigged. Look at the illegal coordination of efforts between Clinton’s campaign and PAC’s. Or the disgraced Democrat who was forced to resign, and in the pay of the Democratic National Committee and a very frequent visitor to the Obama White House, boasted on tape of disrupting Trump rallies by bought and staged violence. He also boasted of busing non-resident voters into Ohio to affect the vote count, and of other dirty tricks which seem to be longstanding practice for Democrats. And the Justice Department and media remains silent on the matter as apparently to them voting fraud is an act of pride rather than a crime... as long as it helps your preferred candidate. And why not, one of the media's own was caught boasting to a presidential candidate’s team that she new of debate questions in advance and disclosed them to the team. Other 'journalists' seek permission and approval before printing stories or allow the campaign to warp their stories into a fashion that is favorable to Clinton. The mainstream is guilty of attempting to influence the direction of the election. And the DOJ who should be insuring the election is not rigged, actually participates in the election rigging.

And who here believes that if Hillary Clinton loses the election after the email disclosures from WikiLeaks, she won’t be yelling from the rooftops that the election was rigged by the Russians?

Apologies but I'm only now getting to this reply to my post. Wanted to follow up because I think you missed my question in your reply - I wasn't questioning it being rigged at all:

If, as we are concluding from your post, the election is rigged, and we conclude that Trump is clearly winning in the polls by his own admissions last night, then my question was what benefit is it to him to continue to shout about the election that he is likely to win being rigged?

I just don't understand the logic of claiming that a race you are winning is likely invalid? Surely that's inviting everybody to protest after you win?