GBAtemp Debate Club: Presidential Candidates

[Hungry Friend]

Halo: Would you support cutting the defense budget by a significant amount as well as legalizing or at the very least decriminalizing all drugs so we(the US) doesn't lock more people up per capita than any other nation on Earth? Naturally Veterans should be taken care of but the defense budget is pretty much the worst form of socialism in a lot of ways, ie a big bloated jobs program that makes a lot of weapons and equipment we don't even need. I actually prefer sanders over anyone else running but I do recognize that he's very far from perfect and much like any other politician I don't trust him. It's about choosing the least shitty candidate, not the ideal one when you're talking about presidential elections. the donor class picks the candidates for the most part minus self-funded ones like Trump(who I don't take seriously from a policy standpoint although he's a great salesman) so there are no GOOD choices.

There are millions of other wasteful things our government does that could be cut like demilitarizing the police force(that's minor in terms of $ though), not subsidizing big corporations like oil/gas companies that don't need help and I'd have to spend hours doing research to make a real, comprehensive list but you understand my general question. I lean left but there are also things, like gun control, I tend to lean very very right on.

The entire left/right divide is just a way for donors and their marionettes to get us all pissed off at eachother and distract us from all the awful shit they're doing.

 

[FAST6191]

1. Idiots who kill themselves don't trump my right to own guns.
2. X has various uses. X also causes accidental deaths. Unless you're in favor of banning all X's, you A: Support owning guns, cars, eggs, or B: Are a hypocrite. Which is it :^)?

You always seem to want to accuse me of some kind of liberalism... it feels very strange as the word is not inherently negative, though I suppose if you are declaring taxes theft and a bunch of other things then anything fits.

Why wouldn't suicide prevention (among other things) trump your rights to own weapons? Probabilities, harm reduction and such factor into all sorts of laws. I would take issue with categorising those attempting suicide as idiots but that is probably a matter for a different day.

On banning because it has potential to cause harm you make a gross oversimplification. It is usually a factor of harm reduction from not having something (having fun is a valid reason to have something) vs economic impact and a whole bunch of other things. It could even be area specific -- banning peanuts in general would be bad, banning peanuts from school cafeterias is a different matter entirely. No transport would rather impact a lot of things and therefore it was probably determined to keep it, however safety features get mandated, regulations on use get passed and people get incentives to upgrade to said new models
Banning an egg because of a dare/silly contest would be an example of reactionary law making, such a thing is seldom an especially useful way to set about the law. Considering the underlying concepts is a better way.

 

[TheCasketMan]

I would Vote for Trump. He knows what is wrong with the country and its economy, and is not afraid to fix it no matter how much hate he gets.

 

[Ericzander]

I'm just going to give my reaction to your post. Not any kind of attack! Just my thoughts.

Sanders : I kinda like him. Has a liberal version of Ron Paul vibe bug lets face it he will never beat Clinton

I agree that he can't beat Clinton which is a bit unnerving. But simply because he is basically the liberal version of Ron Paul (as in, he should be running as a third party) I don't see him doing well. Maybe I'll vote for him in the primary.

Biden : it scares me since he is so unsure if he wants to run about how he would be as pres. Probably won't run

Which is kind of fucked up right? Being the President of the United States is a huuuuge job. Probably the biggest job in the world. This isn't something you can decide a few months in advance. There's one of two possibilities. The first is that he knew for a long time that he was or wasn't going to run and thinks that the American people are stupid enough to believe that he is still thinking about it. The second is that he really doesn't know which means that the potential next president doesn't even know if he is up for the job!

Clinton : she is a hyporcrit kinda since she and bill both kinda sucked and most of the stuff Clinton did in the 90s (don't ask don't tell, war on drugs ) were things that were bad

Suuuuuuuper hypocrite. Like I said above the worst possibility would be Trump vs Clinton and I'd have to vote for Trump who disgusts me just slightly less than Clinton. Benghazi, email scandal, flip flopping on issues just to be in agreeange with the popular liberal stance. She's a parasite. Hope they don't pull the sexism card to guilt people into voting for her.

Trump : you know

We all know.

Bush : to.much like W

First disagreement. I don't think he's too much like W. Simply because they are brothers. He discusses in detail several things that he would have done differently.

Carly : she sucked at HP and has no political experience

And this is my only major disagreement with you. Fiorina prevented HP from going completely under. Yeah, the stock price fell but that was during a recession where IBM and Microsoft's stock also fell to the point where HP was finally able to compete with them.

Revenue nearly doubled, cash flow quadrupled, and they doubled their patents. People can say what they want about Fiorina but she did not ruin her company

Carson : I like him as a person but the fact he has not political experience

I would claim that maybe we need somebody without political experience to run as president. An outsider. People are sick of career politicians which is why they've been voting for Trump in the polls. Besides lets be honest... If Clinton is the nominee then liberals get to play the sexism card. If Carson is the nominee then conservatives get to play the race card.

Other GOPers : no hope of winning gop let alone the election

Truth.

 

[Flame]

I NEED MY GUNS! IF WE GET INVADED BY ANOTHER NATION!

>has more nukes than the other nations nukes put together.



THE 1% SHOULD HAVE EVERYTHING! THEY PAY 99% OF THE TAX!


>is on gbatemp asking how to pirate games.

 

[Deboog]

>has more nukes than the other nations nukes put together.

Actually Russia has about as many nukes as us.

 

[RevPokemon]

I NEED MY GUNS! IF WE GET INVADED BY ANOTHER NATION!

>has more nukes than the other nations nukes put together.



THE 1% SHOULD HAVE EVERYTHING! THEY PAY 99% OF THE TAX!


>is on gbatemp asking how to pirate games.

Agree here in LA we have more weapons than fing Argentina.

At the same time I do feel the 1% vs 99 is a bit of a issue for me since the real issue I feel is between the minimum wage workers vs employers which means that I think higher wages beat higher taxation ( granted the ultra rich do need to pay more).

I mean sure the 1% pays alot of total income but how much do they pay? I mean a lot only pay in the teens do to loop holes? They should be taxed equally as us people are.

@Ericzander

Bush : I get what your saying but the non Republican voter will probably see them as the same and for good reasons many will not vote for a bush no matter what even if they are different

Carson : I mean if Perot as an Indy can get 19 percent then I'm sure if Carson wins he will be able to get a good amount but I personally want someone with experience but I get why people like him

Fiorina : whether or not she failed it doesn't matter since HP will be used against her plus she failed running for senate which scares me a bit.

Ultimately I get your points

 

[Haloman800]

Why wouldn't suicide prevention (among other things) trump your rights to own weapons?

Idiots killing themselves doesn't negate my constitutional rights. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

On banning because it has potential to cause harm you make a gross oversimplification. It is usually a factor of harm reduction from not having something

If you are talking about probabilities, you are 52 TIMES (5200%) more likely to kill yourself accidentally in a car than you are from mishandling a firearm.

I agree with you, let's ban assault vehicles :^) if you disagree, you must hate children.

 

[FAST6191]

I believe it is actually a constitutional amendment, one written quite some time ago in a rather different world, that originally sought to provide you access to weapons. So not set in stone and arguably the reasons for it do not really apply (your well regulated militia is not going to do too well against a well regulated tank and even less well against a well regulated aerial bombing). Seen as there are many other things banned that I might argue I should be free to enjoy (some drugs being a good one) then I do not see it as being an overly great logical issue. Whether suicide prevention would be enough to be able to overturn such a thing by itself remains to be seen but in a greater context it makes a valid point to consider whether firearms are worth the hassle. For giggles then what if the person attempting suicide is not an idiot?

How did you arrive at this 52 times thing? If this is just a simple multiplication of the number of incidents then that is a risky way of setting about stats. Likewise 52x might still be acceptable for what benefits are provided by vehicles.

For what it is worth I do hate children as well -- they smell, they are expensive and they are shit at science. Why anybody would have them I have no idea (well I do, said answer being a biological drive, but it is not a great one from where I sit).

 

[Haloman800]

How did you arrive at this 52 times thing?

32,000 accidental car deaths per year vs 606 accidental gun deaths, 32K / 606 = 52x

For what it is worth I do hate children

Then why ban guns? p.s. Dead kids don't trump my constitutional rights, either.

 

[kuwanger]

@FAST6191: The way I see it, suicide isn't a very good basis to reconsider gun laws. Honestly, a lot of people who commit suicide? The elderly who act in an act of desperation about their long-term prospects of a life they can stand to live and the fears of a dwindling supply of retirement money. The young who act in an act of desperation about a world they can't begin to comprehend which seems destined to crush any chance of happiness they'll have. In short, people who either (1) are need of an intervention to really evaluate their situation or (2) a small handful who really should be offing themselves instead of suffering in life out of some misguided belief that life is always preferable to death. In any case, taking guns away only deals with a symptom but really doesn't deal with the problem and just leaves people in a limbo.

@Haloman800: You keep skirting around the real issue. Guns have one purpose: to kill living things. Very few people today, especially in western countries, use them as a means of providing food. So, the main target then are other people. This is fundamentally different to cars, knives, or a slew of other tools. And to try to frame everything as a matter of statistics is ridiculous.

PS - Personally, I'm mostly against stricter gun laws. Honestly, I'm against gun restrictions on felons--by the same token I'm generally against parole, various sex/anti-social/etc registries, etc. They're all ways to extend punishment or to convert ridiculously long prison terms into something else (hint: if you start having to pass laws that mandate convicts must serve 75% of their prison term, it's a good sign prison terms are too long). Having said all that, I'm not exactly happy with the notion of people having a right to own nuclear arms, although in a perverse way I think it might help people reconsider their priorities on risk. *shrug*

 

[Haloman800]

Guns have one purpose: to kill living things.

Guns main purpose is self defense.You don't need to pull the trigger for it to be effective at thwarting would-be criminals. Why would you argue that Obama should have guns to protect him and his family, but I can't have them to protect mine?

 

[Hungry Friend]

I'm of the mind that guns don't kill people; people kill people. I lean mostly left on economic issues but over-regulating guns will just prevent regular people from having tools to defend themselves while all the psychopaths who shoot random people will either be able to pass background checks or simply buy guns illegally. Most of these mass shooters come out of nowhere, have no criminal records etc. so when people like the president politicize shootings & argue for universal background checks even though he and the rest of the Dems know that would not prevent the vast majority of mass shootings, it's really disgusting. I also hate it when Republican politicians politicize the issue and pretend to care about mental health(most don't) so both parties are equally guilty of politicizing mass shootings in very dishonest ways.

I feel the same way about over-regulating drugs as well. Let people choose what they put in their own bodies because tobacco,(#1 killer as far as drugs go) alcohol and various prescription drugs are the biggest killers anyway. Prohibition is fucking stupid, puts tons of innocent and troubled people in prison and costs a massive amount of money. How about actually taking addiction and other mental health issues seriously instead of just putting everyone in prison?

Also we(the US) needs to stay out of the middle east and let them fight their own damned battles. I don't want to hear about one more US soldier getting hurt or killed in Afghanistan, for example. Also, the islamic state/ISIS is NOT some big threat as it's being made out to be; they're dangerous in Arab countries but not to the US.

 

[Vipera]

Here you can get an unlimited amount of hunting rifles in your house. If you want to go hunting, you get a hunting license and, as long as you don't kill our national animal, you're good to go. If you want to get a weapon to keep in your house you're allowed to do so as long as, if someone breaks into your house, you use your gun on them only if you are risking your life (of course, you have to register all of the firearms in your house). If you want to carry around a firearm to defend yourself and you are a private citizen there is no way you will be allowed a permit. Even those who have a permit gets a lot of shit because, if a jeweler shoots a thief armed/with a fake gun, killing him, it's "guilty until proven innocent". There was also a case where a cop was arrested because he shoot at two thieves running away by a car. The thieves weren't threatening anymore, so shooting is a no-no.

Now, I don't want the USA to be like Italy, but even I think that owning a gun is way too easy. I think psychologists should be involved and you have to do mandatory training for your guns. Also you shouldn't be able to carry long guns/assault firearms with an open carry if you are a private citizen without a very good reason to do so. Why carrying a rifle while casually walking to your office? I think it's more of a "short guy" complex.


As for the candidates, if Trump gets elected as some sort of "joke" "just for the lulz" I say the whole internet has failed to be regular human beings and we need internet licenses too.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

It is kind of interesting that owning a gun is a basic human right (according to the Bill of Rights) while marrying who you want when you want is still only technically a "privilege"

 

[AlanJohn]

At the time being Bernie Sanders is the common-sense mans only choice. Which is a shame, I don't really like him that much. Hopefully he'll start a trend of rational thinking and some other, more qualified and younger candidates with views resembling his will pop up. Americans, please don't fuck this up!
Sincerely, the world.

 

[RevPokemon]

It is kind of interesting that owning a gun is a basic human right (according to the Bill of Rights) while marrying who you want when you want is still only technically a "privilege"

Soceity is fed up tbh.

I mean when the 2nd a was established there was no police, little security, constant war, and a ton of things which required gun ownership. Also fire arms didn't have massive rounds nor did people stock pile up nor killing tons of people in mass shootings

I get the 2nd amendment but times have changed and I feel the NRA has twisted the 2nd amendment to support there views which is disgusting

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

At the time being Bernie Sanders is the common-sense mans only choice. Which is a shame, I don't really like him that much. Hopefully he'll start a trend of rational thinking and some other, more qualified and younger candidates with views resembling his will pop up. Americans, please don't fuck this up!
Sincerely, the world.

Agree but sadly I don't see him doing shit since he doesn't have the billionaire friends that Clinton does

 

[Blaze163]

Obviously anyone named Bush or Clinton has a shot, legacy and all. I think there are enough thick fucks out there that'll think Trump will be funny and actually vote as a joke instead of considering what would serve the country best. Beyond that none of the names mean anything to me as someone outside the US.

Not that it matters. We all know who will win.

Spoiler

 

[AlanJohn]

Agree but sadly I don't see him doing shit since he doesn't have the billionaire friends that Clinton does

The thing is, I can see him winning, since his popularity keeps growing and more and more people are starting to support him, even though there's over a year left until the elections.

What I'm most worried about him is the fact that he has no backbone, old man was literally thrown off stage by a couple of radical black ladies, how the hell do you expect a man like that to confront someone like Putin?
Trump on the other hand has his "I give no fucks" policy which, in theory, might actually "help" the US in it's international politics, but not in a good way.

 

[RevPokemon]

The thing is, I can see him winning, since his popularity keeps growing and more and more people are starting to support him, even though there's over a year left until the elections.

What I'm most worried about him is the fact that he has no backbone, old man was literally thrown off stage by a couple of radical black ladies, how the hell do you expect a man like that to confront someone like Putin?
Trump on the other hand has his "I give no fucks" policy which, in theory, might actually "help" the US in it's international politics, but not in a good way.

Because fighting those women would have been a lot worse and showed he does not support BLM.

I can see him winning and I'm a fan of him (I knew about him way before the run) but at the end Clinton has more money, friends, and media to help her beat Sanders