• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

2016 American Presidential Campaign

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh yeah I think Hillary is looking for anyway to secure the primary. I think she will majorly dial back the rhetoric on gun control if she does secure the primary. The conservatives have a lot o tough stances they have to take even though they might not believe them. This is one of the unpopular tough ones democrats must take.
 
Excuse my ignorance but who are the top 3 candidates in each party at the moment?

I was told it's Trump, Carson and Fiorina for GOP, but I only know of Clinton and Sanders for the Dems...
 
As long as he keeps his mouth shut about gun laws , he might have a chance. Otherwise, it could be trump in the Whitehouse.
Hilary, with her clinical ambition and narcissism, has just committed political suicide.
Droppersneck said:
Joe Biden should be entering shortly.
Click to expand...
 
You guys are acting like this is your first rodeo. This happens several times a year, there's a shooting, politicians discuss tighter gun control measures, meanwhile weapons sales skyrocket in fear of an impending ban.

While on the otherside of the fence, mental illness is the culprit. Even though There's a much higher chance for a person of mental disabilities to be the target of violence than vice versa. And most spree killings and serial murders are perpetrated by rational people with well thought out plans, methods of exception and an expectation of fame. I agree that there is an element of mental illness involved in some of the shootings, but it's not formulaic. It's not science, the correlation between mental illness and mass murder just isn't strong enough to draw that conclusion.

The sad part about the saga of mass violence is that I'm just not even affected anymore. "BREAKING NEWS: MASS SHOOTING IN OREGON"..."Oh, it must be wednesday again."

This shit is perpetual on every level. We have the exact same conversation after every shooting, with the exact same remedies and the exact same dialog and demonization (unless it's done by a black person, in which then is done by a stereotypical angry black dude - or by a muslim, which is automatically considered a terrorist attack. If the shooting in Oregon would have been perpetrated by a muslim we would be talking about the terror attack in Oregon right now).

It's not working.
 
Last edited:
^ You said the same thing last time as well. ;)

If you look in the other thread, I did propose the idea of adding campus security to every college as a stop-gap solution to the problem. You're right, the same conversation does keep happening and nothing has come of it yet. The cyclic nature of it is clear to anyone who has lived through these years. Obama talked about the cyclic nature in his speech. Think of it this way though -- How long did the civil rights conversation take place before a real step forward was made?
 
cashfl0w_d0nkey said:
^ You said the same thing last time as well. ;)
Click to expand...

If I were a betting man I'd wager that I'd say it again within the next 3-4 weeks. :P

Think of it this way though -- How long did the civil rights conversation take place before a real step forward was made?
Click to expand...

I mean, semi-automatic weapons were banned in 1994 until 2004. It sort of feels like we're going backwards as such talk today would be considered blasphemous
 
Bardeaux said:
If I were a betting man I'd wager that I'd say it again within the next 3-4 weeks. :P



I mean, semi-automatic weapons were banned in 1994 until 2004. It sort of feels like we're going backwards as such talk today would be considered blasphemous
Click to expand...

The assault weapon ban didn't ban all semi-automatic weapons.
 
Well you're right, the climate has indeed changed, but it's a matter of opinion of if it's better or worse now.
 
Well, we can start by counting how many mass shootings occurred during the two eras and look for a correlation.

Then move on to the spree culture, everyone wants to be the guy with the highest score. This is how Canada handled it's parliament shooting better than any US shooting. It didn't make a superstar out of the shooter.
 
Bardeaux said:
Well, we can start by counting how many mass shootings occurred during the two eras and look for a correlation.

Then move on to the spree culture, everyone wants to be the guy with the highest score. This is how Canada handled it's parliament shooting better than any US shooting. It didn't make a superstar out of the shooter.
Click to expand...

We already have a thread for discussing mass shootings and I'm already feeling immense futility and pointlessness over it, I'd prefer we didn't turn this one into another one. I won't mention it again on this thread, I hope you do the same. Hopefully we can keep it on the subject of the futility and pointlessness of the election and our future worst president ever, whomever it may be.

But to end on a note of agreement. Regarding the 'spree culture', not how I would have worded it, but I couldn't agree more with the sentiment. The media coverage of it is disgusting to me and out of control. It's probably making things worse. You're right, Canada handled it so much better.
 
Gun politics are going to be a vital part of the discussion (even though there are sooo many more fruitful options to curb gun violence), I don't particularly think it falls outside the realm of the election thread, right? It has been and will be a big part of the "official" dialog.
 
True, but I think it should be limited to what the candidates said about gun control and how that could affect their candidacy, not on if their ideas are right or not. or getting sidetracked discussing the subject brought up instead of the election. I'm not saying it shouldn't be discussed, just that I'd suggest it shouldn't be in this thread. Of course people can talk about hillary or whomevers comments on gun control and other issues and how that could affect nominations and the presidency in this thread. As you said, it's part of the dialog. All I'm recommending is not letting this thread become another gun control discussion thread, and keeping it an election discussion thread.
 
This is just laying the foundation for what the candidates are going to be discussing. I think this thread serves as a platform for not just gun debates, but economic topics, other social phenomena (even though there's a gay rights thread and several racial threads), foreign policy (even though there are countless foreign policy threads) etc. The tide of the discussion will turn away from guns in a few days. It always does unless it's a thread explicitly for gun debate.

I won't let it go on and on, but right now, it's very important to the election.
 
Lets talk about the foreign policy of the candidates. Under the US constitution, the Secretary of State determines US foreign policy. We can gain a lot of insight about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy based on her past behaviour. In 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided that the US must support the Syrian insurgents. Being the astute and clear-thinking leader that she is and taking into consideration the vast information gathering resources she had available not to mention expert advice from allies who were familiar with the factions as well as good old common sense, she must have researched them thoroughly and thought carefully before making her decision, right? As we know, the insurgents are ISIS terrorists affiliated with al Quaeda and partly funded by oil money and I believe the Saudis as well. (Even the general public who might not have been familiar with ISIS was aware that bad guys came into power after the overthrow of the Egyptian leader Mubaric. Not that Mubaric was good, but Morsi was a lot worse than a military dictatorship. Thankfully the military took back control.) At that point, casualties were in the 1000s and there was no refugee crisis. Under her leadership, the US supplied the terrorists with weapons and other support. Because of her support, casualties are more than 200000. THere wre more than 20 million internal refugees and over 4 million who have fled the country. Her friends, the ISIS, have destroyed entire cities and countless archeological sites. All of these atrocities amount to genocide. Now, much of the Middle East is now unstable as the insurgency expands into Iraq and other countries. Of course it was President Cheney who created the situation in Iraq causing the chain reaction that lead to Syria, but he's not a candidate. As president, Hillary Clinton will no doubt appoint a like minded and equally incompetent secretary of state and together, this dynamic duo will conduct US policy in the same way.

For all the xenophobes out there, Hilary Clinton wants to give refuge to 65,000 Syrians. Clinton is only saying this to make herself look better politically. I believe the US should do this for humanitarian reasons, but Clinton should be forced to help pay the cost and sponsor them as punishment for her direct role in creating the situation. If someone who is not a sociopath had a role in creating a situation like this, I'm sure she would gladly help pay.
Bardeaux said:
This is just laying the foundation for what the candidates are going to be discussing. I think this thread serves as a platform for not just gun debates, but economic topics, other social phenomena (even though there's a gay rights thread and several racial threads), foreign policy (even though there are countless foreign policy threads) etc. The tide of the discussion will turn away from guns in a few days. It always does unless it's a thread explicitly for gun debate.

I won't let it go on and on, but right now, it's very important to the election.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bardeaux said:
I mean, semi-automatic weapons were banned in 1994 until 2004. It sort of feels like we're going backwards as such talk today would be considered blasphemous
Click to expand...

No they weren't.

The assault weapon ban basically banned scary-looking guns.

Here's the criteria from Wikipedia:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Bayonet mount
  • Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
  • Grenade launcher mount

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
  • Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  • Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
  • Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
  • A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Detachable magazine.
Click to expand...

Additionally, some specific models of guns were banned.

But semi-automatics were legal during that time. As were certain full automatic weapons, depending on state laws (but almost no civilians kill with fully automatic weapons).

The 1994 bill was basically a BS bill regardless of what side of the issue you were on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top