If Clinton Does Win

[Paranormal Panther]

56 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

Ah yes, the slippery slope argument.

Fair enough. But when one of your regular mass shootings occurs the argument from pro-gun people on here is that guns are not the problem. People are. Mental illness is. If that's the case than more stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of the wrong people can only be a good thing, right?

It depends. It's not a good thing if it infringes citizens' constitutional rights. The truth is that we can't control or predict most tragic events, let alone stop crazy or evil people from getting and using weapons of all kinds. Buyers always will find sellers.

[Big Jim]

1 hour ago, and then said:

I agree completely.  The problem is that many on the political Left in the US seem today to have an entirely different definition for common sense.  I realize I'm far from mainstream today but when I was growing up a kid was expected to deal with bullying by learning to toughen up and respect THEMSELVES...not cry and rage and demand that others "like them".  Adults acted like adults.  To give an example from today's news - Trump remarked that if he lost an election because he said some hurtful, disgusting (locker room banter) while the world is in total chaos and in desperate need of leadership then it was going to be sad in the extreme that such a chance of help was missed.  When you consider it, he's correct.  People are direly focused on the most insignificant things today.  It reminds me of the appalling hypocrisy of the US in WWII when they blew a gasket over George S Patton slapping a sniveling coward in Germany at the height of the bloodiest conflict in history.

I just recently rewatched Patton and was surprised at the number of similarities between him and Trump.  This was before the recording with Billy Bush was released.  His vulgarity, cockiness, arrogance and similar traits were all reminiscent of Trump.  He was constantly saying the wrong thing, to the wrong crowd. At one point he says "I know I'm a prima donna, I admit it."  But he knew how to inspire his followers and how to get things done.  Also the same as Trump.  But he was the man the times required.  The world would most likely be a different place today without him.  We should learn from history.  Just as a side note, he also believed in reincarnation.  Trump was born 6 months after Patton died.  Hmmm.

[Paranormal Panther]

34 minutes ago, F3SS said:

It truly is disheartening what's going on here but how can there be any reporting when the media would have to chastise itself since they're completely in on it. Collusion it is. It's absolutely nuts. Even though we always knew this it's always a lot crazier when you find out you're right. Trump really needs to find a way to drive this home and figure out a way to make people realize the weight of this corruption. He ought to just steal the mic on the next debate right from the start and deliver a long and clear message about this. It's his last stand and he's going to be seriously under attack as it's her last stand too.

Yet, they happily continue their ruse. Many people know that it's a charade and a facade, but Clinton's allies follow their written (literally?) scripts. It's like they don't know that we have alternative news sources. If Trump follows your advice, even more people will realize the extent of the propaganda, which makes Pravda look honest by comparison.

[F3SS]

1 minute ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Yet, they happily continue their ruse. Many people know that it's a charade and a facade, but Clinton's allies follow their written (literally?) scripts. It's like they don't know that we have alternative news sources. If Trump follows your advice, even more people will realize the extent of the propaganda, which makes Pravda look honest by comparison.

I hope he does. I kind of wish Newt Gingrich could step in for him real quick and articulate it.

[Paranormal Panther]

1 minute ago, F3SS said:

I hope he does. I kind of wish Newt Gingrich could step in for him real quick and articulate it.

Gingrich makes the rounds. Surely, most Americans see the bias. The news outlets aren't just in the tank for Clinton. Some of them plan and prepare their stories *with her campaign team*!

[Alaric]

“I have this feeling man, ’cause you know, it’s just a handful of people who run everything, you know … that’s true, it’s provable. It’s not … I’m not a f*king conspiracy nut, it’s provable. A handful, a very small elite, run and own these corporations, which include the mainstream media. I have this feeling that whoever is elected president, like Clinton... no matter what you promise on the campaign trail — blah, blah, blah — when you win, you go into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-f*ks who got you in there. And you’re in this smoky room, and this little film screen comes down … and a big guy with a cigar goes, “Roll the film.” And it’s a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you’ve never seen before … that looks suspiciously like it’s from the grassy knoll. And then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and they go to the new president, “Any questions?” “Er, just what my agenda is.” “First we bomb Baghdad.” “You got it …"

The Prophet Bill

[Arbenol]

1 hour ago, Paranormal Panther said:

It depends. It's not a good thing if it infringes citizens' constitutional rights. The truth is that we can't control or predict most tragic events, let alone stop crazy or evil people from getting and using weapons of all kinds. Buyers always will find sellers.

I agree with you to a large extent. Your choices are threefold.

Restrict higher risk people from having access to firearms. You say impossible to predict. I say difficult but not complete impossible. But I take your point.

Fewer guns in the hands of private citizens. Constitutionally unacceptable to you and many others.

Change nothing and accept the inevitability that gun violence will continue at a higher level than most comparable nations.

Few people seem honest enough to state the third option as preference. To me, that's what it seems to come down to. It's the price you pay for your rights.

I appreciate that you responded without trying to insult my presumed nationality. I'm genuinely interested in the various perspectives Americans have on the issue.

 

[RavenHawk]

5 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

Ah yes, the slippery slope argument.

No slippery slope here.  Obamacare was designed to have this kind of power in it.  People warned of this from the beginning.  I was one of them.

Fair enough. But when one of your regular mass shootings occurs the argument from pro-gun people on here is that guns are not the problem. People are.

That is correct but what better guise to get what she wants?  Misdirect her intentions.  It is her persona in how she’s wrapping women’s support around her little finger.  She’s not interested in the people, just the power.

Mental illness is. If that's the case than more stringent regulations to keep firearms out of the hands of the wrong people can only be a good thing, right?

That’s the point.  When do the wrong people become the wrong people?  It depends on who has control of society.  If you do not have the favor of the ruling elite, you become the wrong people.  The bottom line is that if the truly wrong person does not have access to guns, they will seek alternative methods of killing.  Exactly what Islamic terrorists are doing.  It’s just another ruse.

[+and-then]

9 hours ago, Parsec said:

Soooooo hold on a second.

Are you the same person that started this? 

 

So I was wrong,  it wasn't Ella,  it was you (well, it is now, so let's say that I saw the future)! 

 

Yes indeed.  My name attached to it should have been a dead giveaway.  What is your point?  That I am somehow going to cause violence because I comment on the trends in our country?

[Gingitsune]

Quote

If Clinton does win, what will you do?

I'll do my Canadian things in Canada.

I may be going to New York for a week in 2017, though.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Gingitsune

[Quaentum]

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 1:16 PM, OverSword said:

Can you elaborate on how his tax code will "cost 7 trillion".  We do know that debt is added by borrowing from the fed don't we?

Everything done by the federal government has a cost associated with it.  I don't have all the specifics but am relying on what the number crunchers came up with.  I assume it includes such things as a major change to how the IRS functions concerning the tax code, software upgrades, publication changes, manpower requirements for implementing required changes, etc...

[Aftermath]

On 10/11/2016 at 0:12 PM, Quaentum said:

When Obama was sworn into office, the national debt was 10.6 trillion.  It is estimated that when he leaves office the debt will be 21 trillion or an increase of about 10.4 trillion, basically doubling the debt.  That's everything during his 8 years in office.

Trumps single program to overhaul of the tax code, costing 7 trillion on it's own, is 67% of the entire debt added by Obama and 33% of what the debt will be when Obama leaves office. 

Can you please cite the source for this $7 trillion dollars?  Are you talking about the estimated reduction in federal revenue under Trump's plan?  Or are you specifically talking about the implementation costs to the federal government, i.e., IRS, under Trump's plan?

By the way, the estimate reduction in federal revenue under Trump's tax plan is $9.5 trillion over the first 10 years.  So, I'm not sure where you're getting your number or what it describes.

ETA: I'm not trying to be argumentative, just want to be more informed.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Aftermath

[Parsec]

16 hours ago, and then said:

Yes indeed.  My name attached to it should have been a dead giveaway.  What is your point?  That I am somehow going to cause violence because I comment on the trends in our country?

Just to be sure,  are there two posters with the same nickname or you mean that the person who wrote this (bolded part) 

On 11/9/2016 at 8:53 AM, and then said:

The vote is roughly split down the middle.  Those who vote for HC do so because they hate and or fear Trump.  The same can be said of those who vote for Trump against Clinton.  Trump has already put forth the idea that the election might be "fixed".  How likely do you estimate the chance of violence in the aftermath of a close election?  I think that if Clinton loses there will be violent protests.  If Trump loses I expect fewer problems and no violence.

What say you?

Is the same as this? 

On 11/10/2016 at 0:48 AM, and then said:

If she wins then citizens who take the Second Amendment seriously had better stop complaining and start planning.  Some very serious, potentially life changing decisions are going to have to be made.  I, for one, don't plan to sit back and be robbed of any more rights by this group of criminals.  If it takes violence, so be it.

That's not my point, apparently it's yours and you clearly stated it in your previous post.

Probably things change and for sure you are entitled to change your mind,  but you patronising in the other thread now sadly loses any value.

[RavenHawk]

1 hour ago, Aftermath said:

Can you please cite the source for this $7 trillion dollars?  Are you talking about the estimated reduction in federal revenue under Trump's plan?  Or are you specifically talking about the implementation costs to the federal government, i.e., IRS, under Trump's plan?

I'm taking a guess here but I think the Progressives twist it in a bad light, assuming nothing will get cut in spending.  That is an ultimate must that stuff gets cut.  The three areas of concern for the government should only be reducing the debt, Defense, and the General Welfare.  And what that means basically infrastructure, not social programs.  Obviously some can't be completely cut but phased out over time.

[Poppi]

Big Jim #127

Been bitten by the quote button before, so-

" I just recently rewatched Patton and was surprised at the number of similarities between him and Trump. "

Read this today-

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/astrologers-predict-us-election-trump-clinton-zodiac

Patton believed he was reincarnated, from a long line of warriors. He was a great man in my eyes...trump has flaws, but not nearly as criminal as hillary and bill.

edit- this post shows as #125, but last post shows #138

What is up with that?

 

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Poppi
discrepancy in post counts

[Olate1]

For a smoother transition......K-Y Jelly for everyone

[Paranormal Panther]

18 hours ago, Arbenol said:

I agree with you to a large extent. Your choices are threefold.

Restrict higher risk people from having access to firearms. You say impossible to predict. I say difficult but not complete impossible. But I take your point.

Fewer guns in the hands of private citizens. Constitutionally unacceptable to you and many others.

Change nothing and accept the inevitability that gun violence will continue at a higher level than most comparable nations.

Few people seem honest enough to state the third option as preference. To me, that's what it seems to come down to. It's the price you pay for your rights.

I appreciate that you responded without trying to insult my presumed nationality. I'm genuinely interested in the various perspectives Americans have on the issue.

 

It may seem callous, but we make compromises in life in order to maintain our freedom. That's why I lean towards the third option in your post. It's like traffic safety in that it would save lives if we lowered the speed limit to 40. That's not to say that we couldn't or shouldn't study your first option.

For instance, felons can't buy guns here. Dangerous individuals *should* be prevented from purchasing firearms too if they are honestly determined to pose a risk in an obvious way. It could be a risk to others or themselves, but the criteria would be concrete and rigid in determining said risks, not arbitrary judgment calls that could be abused by statists to get an end run around the Constitution. That includes people on the famous "no fly list" because many of them should not even be on there.

[Ashotep]

 

1 hour ago, Poppi said:

Patton believed he was reincarnated, from a long line of warriors. He was a great man in my eyes...trump has flaws, but not nearly as criminal as hillary and bill.

. 

While Trump may not have the military experience Patton did in ways Trump does seem to think like him.  I think Patton was instrumental in winning WWII.  Some things about him were unlikable but it took his mentality to win. 

Seems like I read someplace when Patton was a young soldier, well before WWII, he killed an enemy soldier and strapped him to the hood of his jeep and hauled him in to camp like that  His commanding officer didn't like it.

 

[Paranormal Panther]

19 hours ago, Alaric said:

“I have this feeling man, ’cause you know, it’s just a handful of people who run everything, you know … that’s true, it’s provable. It’s not … I’m not a f*king conspiracy nut, it’s provable. A handful, a very small elite, run and own these corporations, which include the mainstream media. I have this feeling that whoever is elected president, like Clinton... no matter what you promise on the campaign trail — blah, blah, blah — when you win, you go into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-f*ks who got you in there. And you’re in this smoky room, and this little film screen comes down … and a big guy with a cigar goes, “Roll the film.” And it’s a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you’ve never seen before … that looks suspiciously like it’s from the grassy knoll. And then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and they go to the new president, “Any questions?” “Er, just what my agenda is.” “First we bomb Baghdad.” “You got it …"

The Prophet Bill

That's a great quote. There is a difference with Hillary, though. She would be one of the people showing the film to frighten and threaten her patsy. That's how they roll.

[Paranormal Panther]

13 hours ago, Gingitsune said:

I'll do my Canadian things in Canada.

I may be going to New York for a week in 2017, though.

Canada may look good if Hillary wins. I may just become a hockey fan if she takes the oath of office.

[Paranormal Panther]

37 minutes ago, Olate1 said:

For a smoother transition......K-Y Jelly for everyone

That should be part of the Obamacare package. Justice Roberts likely has a lifetime supply of it.

[Poppi]

Ashotep #143

Hey gorgeous, come here often? ...You are singing my song. Killing me softly. With your words.

ps, i'm single

[+DieChecker]

I know some really Liberal people, and a couple of them asked me recently, "Who are you going to vote for?".

"Trump", I said.

"Who do you think is going to win?", they asked.

"Hillary", I said.

"Ha, ha... hee, hee..." was the general reply.

"Of course, this is Hillary winning, by, what?... 1 or 2 percent? And against a man with no political experience, and a bunch of negatives with Woman, Muslims, Hispanics, and Blacks. Also he's not very religious at all. Hasn't fooled anyone by going to church once or twice. And he swears, and says all kinds of stupid stuff. He wants to build some giant fantasy wall and make Mexico pay for it. And is being rejected by around half of all noteworthy Republicans...

So, yeah, she will probably beat this guy just barely. She must be Fantastic."

That usually sets them back a bit.... 

[+DieChecker]

On 10/10/2016 at 4:24 PM, Paranormal Panther said:

There's a good chance that Hillary will win the election with the help of her Hollywood and media cheerleaders. It's true that Trump hurt himself in many ways, but her allies downplay Clinton's misdeeds if they mention them at all. As the historical record clearly shows, many American voters care more about unimportant things than vital issues. If they install their token woman in the White House, how will you react to it?

How will I react? I'll probably post a bunch of stuff on UM political forums, and whine and complain. But, otherwise I'll keep going to work, and pray to God that she doesn't do a bunch of incredibly stupid things. I hope that if she gets into office, that the Congress and Supreme Court will rein her in like they generally have Obama. I think we'll see another flipping of fortunes in 2018 for House seats, and another Republican ascendancy in Congress. 

[Aftermath]

On 10/10/2016 at 6:24 PM, Paranormal Panther said:

There's a good chance that Hillary will win the election with the help of her Hollywood and media cheerleaders. It's true that Trump hurt himself in many ways, but her allies downplay Clinton's misdeeds if they mention them at all. As the historical record clearly shows, many American voters care more about unimportant things than vital issues. If they install their token woman in the White House, how will you react to it?

Over the course of this week I have been debating how I would answer this question.  But I have finally come to a solid conclusion:

I will be initially p***ed, jaded and disillusioned...  then get over it.  My day to day life probably won't change at all; however I will pray everyday that the cornucopia of stupidity that is her, her Supreme Court appointments, and the corrupt Congress that backs her doesn't **** with my life too much.