# GBAtemp Debate Club: Presidential Candidates



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 3, 2015)

Hello everyone! Let's try something a little bit different: our very own 'temp debate club! 

This week's topic:
*




*
*Who do YOU want to be the next President of the United States, and why?*​


Spoiler: Resources



List of all candidates and their websites: http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm
Quiz to see what candidate's views most align with yours (I HIGHLY recommend taking this before posting, it will help give you an idea of what all the candidates are about): http://www.isidewith.com/
Socialism vs. Capitalism: http://bizfinance.about.com/od/smallbusinessissues/qt/CapvsSoc.htm
Difference between Socialism and _Democratic _Socialism: http://www.differencebetween.net/mi...e-between-socialism-and-democratic-socialism/
Chart view of Democrat vs Republican ideals: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican



The rules are simple: Every week I will be posting a new topic for all of GBAtemp to debate on in a free-for-all style. There are no winners or losers, the sole purpose of these debates are to learn other's views about important issues. For each topic, I will be posting a list of resources to help you with your debates that may be added to upon request. After a week has passed, I will ask a moderator to close the thread so that a new topic may be created. I will also accept PMs of topics, as my understanding of controversial topics only extends to the US, I'd love to get some international issues in here too 
Remember to keep it civil, take people's views into consideration, and above all, HAVE FUN! 

*Note:* As the creator of the debate, I am going to try to remain non-partisan and only comment on this thread if I feel as though something someone has said needs clarification. All political views on my part for this debate and all moving forward are being chucked out the window. I will participate in the polls, though, because polls are fun 



Spoiler: Previous topics



None yet, but there will be a link here next week


----------



## Flame (Oct 3, 2015)

anything but donald fucking trump...


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2015)

Anything but a Republican.


----------



## RustInPeace (Oct 3, 2015)

I don't follow politics or any of this stuff involving potential presidential candidates. However, it's hard to not read something about Donald Trump. As a lapsed wrestling fan, I keep looking at his stuff as that of a heel wrestler. He's basically saying anything that comes out of his mind, he gets a reaction. I would hope he's getting heat, because that's what a heel is supposed to do. Get booed, but as wrestling ages, so do fan perspectives, and these days, it's fun to cheer the bad guy. I do that too, so I would suspect Trump still being on the news, when his spiel by now should not be tolerated, is because people love the heel, too much. The South Park episode last week says it all, albeit not in a wrestling fan perspective. Basically, sensationalist candidate, and the fact he's, pardon the wrestling slang, getting over, shows how fucked up voter response is. At least how I see it, this kind of candidate shouldn't be elected, especially when he's an asshole. So he is a heel, in the old times, pay to see a heel get his ass kicked. I want that heel Donald Trump to get his ass kicked. I'd like Carly Fiorina to do it.

As for the other candidates, I can't really comment on them, not even Fiorina. I just didn't like reading about the face comment towards her. She's a beautiful mature woman, Trump looks like a dirty man's foot with a toupe. What's he talking about? Maybe Bernie Sanders would get my vote, if I did more research of him. I just watched a video highlighting why he could be president. I was convinced, but I can't really go above to the point of giving a vote for sure. Much less can be said for the others. Well, nothing at all. Hillary Clinton? I don't even know much about the e-mail scandal, my only comment is she aged considerably compared to 2008, where I'd give her one for sure. But now, I'd still give her one.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 3, 2015)

The entire GOP is a fucking joke this round. It's basically picking from which person wants to remove rights faster.
Right now I am voting Bernie Sanders, he seems to be the only sensible person right now.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Oct 3, 2015)

I'm not even an American, but I can say that anyone would work; except Donald Trump!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 3, 2015)

Also, I should mention that in the poll I ordered the candidates by highest polling in their party (top 5 for Democrats, Top 9 for Republicans). Let's see if the national average is also the GBAtemp average or if we mix things up a bit


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 3, 2015)

Inertia seems to make most politicians the same as the other from what I can see, probably why I do not bother with the voting lark (if I fancied dealing with a mountain of paperwork I believe I could vote in US elections) unless there is a danger of a serious cretin getting in and I am in a region capable of doing something about it (has not happened yet).

I am also curious how much power the US president actually wields/routinely excises (I do not care much for the "theoretically" if the last one to do use the ability was decades ago). From what I can see a lot of people seem to vastly overestimate both the power and what they are actually responsible for. I would settle for one that does not undo the positive steps taken in the last few years though.

On the other hand whichever one will be able to get a few things in to keep dragging the US into the modern world, failing that then whichever will be able to improve the state of IP law there -- US patents are a farce and the attitudes to copyright scare me.

Also if you have not seen the following videos I highly suggest them


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 3, 2015)

Oh, that's another thing, if anyone has their own resources that they want to share I'd be happy to put them in the OP upon request. @FAST6191 do you want me to do that with your videos?


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 3, 2015)

If you want you can, however they were more generic political information (no idea how many that are capable of voting in these elections will know the specifics there) than anything specific to this election. I just find the maths and (sometimes lack of) logic behind elections to be fascinating and this seemed like a suitable point to share some stuff there.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> I am also curious how much power the US president actually wields/routinely excises (I do not care much for the "theoretically" if the last one to do use the ability was decades ago). From what I can see a lot of people seem to vastly overestimate both the power and what they are actually responsible for. I would settle for one that does not undo the positive steps taken in the last few years though.


The president's ability to nominate judges and Supreme Court justices is reason alone why the election for president of the United States matters.

There's also the matter of cabinet secretaries. For example, some Republicans are on record saying they do not like the EPA, among other agencies, and would nominate someone to the head position who would make it as ineffective as possible.


----------



## Flame (Oct 4, 2015)

I just hate everything about donald fucking trump.. EVERYTHING!


----------



## Foxchild (Oct 4, 2015)

I'm not really impressed with any of the candidates.  I just wanted to say that CGP Grey is awesome.  Everyone should be required to watch his "This video will make you angry" video before being allowed to post on the internet.


----------



## chavosaur (Oct 4, 2015)

With Lacius on this one. The sheer conservative mindset of the republican party is making me want to bonk my head against a brick wall.


----------



## VinsCool (Oct 4, 2015)

Don't vote for Stephen Harper. Oh wait.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Oct 4, 2015)




----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

So, for the sheer sake of discussion, why not Donald Trump? He, of course, wants to "make America great again". He has plenty of experience in bringing his company out of debt, and believes he can do the same with America. Discuss


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So, for the sheer sake of discussion, why not Donald Trump? He, of course, wants to "make America great again". He has plenty of experience in bringing his company out of debt, and believes he can do the same with America. Discuss


To start, he's a Republican.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

Lacius said:


> To start, he's a Republican.


Lol yes, this is true, but I mean specifically, why shouldn't someone vote for him?


----------



## yuyuyup (Oct 4, 2015)

If it ends up being Bernie vs Trump, I won't even bother voting, either will be great


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

I actually recommend voting no matter what, it's the only way you can influence the election. Not voting is throwing away one of your only opportunities to influence the government's decisions

Also I highly recommend that everyone vote in their state's primaries, in most states if you're going to be 18 by November of 2016 you can also vote in the primaries


----------



## Hungry Friend (Oct 4, 2015)

I went by how likely they are of winning their respective party's nomination rather than personal preference, so I went with Hilary, Sanders, Trump(unfortunately) Rubio and Carson. It's still incredibly early though and once the race really starts heating up, people will feel more pressure to make their choices more definitively and I hope that environment causes Trump to fizzle out. Personal opinion aside though, Trump is very good at pandering, better than most long-time career politicians like Hilary, Sanders or Jeb. I don't trust anyone on the list and I know basically nothing about Ben Carson but I prefer Sanders over everyone else. He's better than ultra robotic, Romney-esque Hilary at least.

A bit OT but I'm feeling some serious schadenfreude watching Jeb Bush squirm.


----------



## Smuff (Oct 4, 2015)

I'm not American so it's none of my business, but my vote would go to whoever promises to get rid of the guns. C'mon people, how may more kids have to die at school before anyone does anything ?
And in anticipation of the tired old it's-my-right and self-defense arguements, how many times have you actually needed that assault rifle ? Just admit it, guns give you a hardon and make you feel like the king of the world.


----------



## Etheboss (Oct 4, 2015)

Too bad this is an USA orientated debate, i now have nothing to contribute (wich maybe is for the better  )


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2015)

Smuff said:


> I'm not American so it's none of my business, but my vote would go to whoever promises to get rid of the guns.


Then you would like the Democratic candidates (e.g. Hillary Clinton, the likely nominee).


----------



## Hungry Friend (Oct 4, 2015)

Smuff said:


> I'm not American so it's none of my business, but my vote would go to whoever promises to get rid of the guns. C'mon people, how may more kids have to die at school before anyone does anything ?
> And in anticipation of the tired old it's-my-right and self-defense arguements, how many times have you actually needed that assault rifle ? Just admit it, guns give you a hardon and make you feel like the king of the world.



The nuts who commit these awful shooting could in nearly every case pass a background check and I don't support getting rid of or any sort of extreme restrictions on guns/the 2nd amendment in general. I don't even own a gun but I believe people have the right to defend themselves and furthermore, I don't think cops should be allowed to use anything that your average civilian isn't allowed to purchase and it's really creepy how militarized the police are. I'm with most ring wingers on the gun issue although I lean left for the most part. It's more our culture of fear and violence and a very bad mental health system that are to blame, not the guns.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 4, 2015)

Anyone who votes Bernie Sanders has absolutely no idea how basic economics works. You are just a child who wants "free" things.

With that being said. CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP! We need to secure our border, otherwise we are not a country at all, we are just a dumping ground for criminal scum of every other country on earth.

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



Hungry Friend said:


> The nuts who commit these awful shooting could in nearly every case pass a background check and I don't support getting rid of or any sort of extreme restrictions on guns/the 2nd amendment in general. I don't even own a gun but I believe people have the right to defend themselves and furthermore, I don't think cops should be allowed to use anything that your average civilian isn't allowed to purchase and it's really creepy how militarized the police are. I'm with most ring wingers on the gun issue although I lean left for the most part. It's more our culture of fear and violence and a very bad mental health system that are to blame, not the guns.


Agreed. See below


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> The nuts who commit these awful shooting could in nearly every case pass a background check and I don't support getting rid of or any sort of extreme restrictions on guns/the 2nd amendment in general.


Background checks demonstrably reduce gun violence. No one is claiming that they would have stopped every mass shooting in recent years, but it's incorrect to say they could have passed a background check _in nearly every case_.



Haloman800 said:


> Anyone who votes Bernie Sanders has absolutely no idea how basic economics work. You are just a child who wants "free" things.


Most if not all of the Republican candidates for president endorse some form of trickle-down economics, which demonstrates on the Republican side a fundamental misunderstanding of how basic economics work. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush, to name two, have presented tax plans that create huge budget deficits because they make debunked trick-down assumptions.

To talk about _free stuff_ is to create a strawman. This isn't about getting free stuff. There is a legitimate income inequality problem in the United States that the Republicans generally don't seem interested in talking about.


----------



## Smuff (Oct 4, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Anyone who votes Bernie Sanders has absolutely no idea how basic economics works. You are just a child who wants "free" things.
> 
> With that being said. CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP! We need to secure our border, otherwise we are not a country at all, we are just a dumping ground for criminal scum of every other country on earth.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I just don't get it. We're not allowed guns in the UK and we have very little gun crime. Our police are not out of control gun toting maniacs, so we don't feel the need to gun-up to defend ourselves against our government. It must be a very specific American paranoia. I don't want to stir up a whole row on this and derail the OP - Each and everyone of us is entitled to our opinions, and mine (while by no means any more "right" or "wrong" than your own) are purely that - mine.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 4, 2015)

Lacius said:


> Background checks demonstrably reduce gun violence. No one is claiming that they would have stopped every mass shooting in recent years, but it's incorrect to say they could have passed a background check _in nearly every case_.


The Aurora, Colorado shooter James Holmes (Batman), drove past several movie theaters until he arrived at one that banned guns. If one person in the theater had a gun, the catastrophe could have been prevented and lives could have been saved. 92% of the mass shootings since 2009 have been in *gun free* zones.
[/quote]


> There is a legitimate *income inequality* problem in the United States


Humans are unequal in intelligence and work ethic, income inequality is a result of human nature. Holding guns to persons heads and demanding their wallets (in the form of taxation) isn't going to change human nature, it only makes you a thug and a robber.

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



Smuff said:


> Yeah, I just don't get it. *We're not allowed guns in the UK and we have very little gun crime*.


Incorrect. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528


> _..[G]un crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.
> Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.
> Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.
> It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993._



Banning guns only keeps law abiding citizens disarmed. To use the USA as an example, there are 350 million privately owned guns, if you banned them, criminals will still get them, and citizens will be easy targets now that they are unable to defend themselves.
Once again, you are not anti-gun, you are very pro-gun, because you need guns to keep people disarmed. And we all know the police never abuse their power or murder innocent individuals.


----------



## Chary (Oct 4, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Banning guns only keeps law abiding citizens disarmed. To use the USA as an example, there are 350 million privately owned guns, if you banned them, criminals will still get them, and citizens will be easy targets now that they are unable to defend themselves.



This. 

Honestly, so long as Clinton, Trump, and Bush don't win, it's all good.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 4, 2015)

Chary said:


> This.
> 
> Honestly, so long as Clinton, Trump, and Bush don't win, it's all good.


If you support the 2nd amendment, you should support Donald Trump, he is an avid 2nd amendment supporter.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
Here's a snippet:


> _The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.
> The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple._


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> The Aurora, Colorado shooter James Holmes (Batman), drove past several movie theaters until he arrived at one that banned guns. If one person in the theater had a gun, the catastrophe could have been prevented and lives could have been saved. 92% of the mass shootings since 2009 have been in *gun free* zones.


I don't think I was talking about gun free zones.



Haloman800 said:


> Humans are unequal in intelligence and work ethic, income inequality is a result of human nature. Holding guns to persons heads and demanding their wallets (in the form of taxation) isn't going to change human nature, it only makes you a thug and a robber.


Income inequality is a much more complex issue than you're making it out to be. To say all or most of the income inequality that exists is the product of differences in skill and work ethic is to be ignorant to the issues. In reality, social mobility has become more difficult over time due in part to policies and/or lack of policies.

In addition, with regard to taxation, liberals generally believe that the rich should pay their fair share in taxes if the rich are going to become rich in part because of tax-related policies that benefit them.



Haloman800 said:


> Banning guns only keeps law abiding citizens disarmed. To use the USA as an example, there are 350 million privately owned guns, if you banned them, criminals will still get them, and citizens will be easy targets now that they are unable to defend themselves.
> Once again, you are not anti-gun, you are very pro-gun, because you need guns to keep people disarmed. And we all know the police never abuse their power or murder innocent individuals.


If you're going to disingenuously frame the issue as banning guns, we can't have a conversation. As far as I'm aware, no one here is seriously talking about taking normal guns away from normal and responsible gun owners.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

Etheboss said:


> Too bad this is a USA orientated debate, I now have nothing to contribute (which maybe is for the better )


You should try to come up with a topic for the future and PM me


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 4, 2015)

Lacius said:


> liberals generally believe that the rich should pay their *fair share* in taxes


The top 5% pays 60% in taxes, while the bottom 50% pays just 2%. The "rich" pay far more than their fair share. It's the "poor" who pay next to nothing.






> As far as I'm aware, *no one here is seriously talking about taking normal guns away from normal and responsible gun owners.*





			
				Smuff said:
			
		

> But* my vote would go to whoever promises to get rid of the guns.*


Wrong again :^). Let's see if you're man enough to admit it.


Lacius said:


> To start, he's a Republican.


Great ad hominem. Why not try responding without logical fallacies?


----------



## Etheboss (Oct 4, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You should try to come up with a topic for the future and PM me


 maybe i will, just for the fact you corrected my bad english, hehe.. 
BTW one thing i will say, Why only a republican and a democratic party... Whoever gets chosen is only chosen by about half the of the voters... that doesn't seem fair to me.


----------



## GhostLatte (Oct 4, 2015)

I don't like any of them to be honest


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

Etheboss said:


> maybe i will, just for the fact you corrected my bad english, hehe..
> BTW one thing i will say, Why only a republican and a democratic party... Whoever gets chosen is only chosen by about half the of the voters... that doesn't seem fair to me.


To be honest that's why Bernie Sanders is caucused as a Democrat. He is actually an Independent, but knows that he would have no chance of winning if he didn't caucus for one of the two major sides (and he agrees more with Democratic policies that Republican)


----------



## Foxchild (Oct 4, 2015)

> Income inequality is a much more complex issue than you're making it out to be. To say all or most of the income inequality that exists is the product of differences in skill and work ethic is to be ignorant to the issues. In reality, social mobility has become more difficult over time due in part to policies and/or lack of policies.



Indeed.  Whether or not their attempts are genuinely altruistic, both political parties are making this worse.  Republican policies tend to favor the rich, to keep them in power.  Democrat policies tend to incentify staying poor by making the hump to get out of poverty harder to get over (there comes a point where making more money harms you because you would lose your govt. benefits, so better to stay where you're at).  Basically, Republicans help the rich stay rich, Dems help the poor stay poor, and both pull resources from whats left of the middle class.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> The top 5% pays 60% in taxes, while the bottom 50% pays just 2%. The "rich" pay far more than their fair share. It's the "poor" who pay next to nothing.


We decided as a country long ago that it is fair to have the people who can afford to pay higher taxes pay more than those who can't. It would disproportionately hurt the poor if we had them pay the same tax rate as the rich because that percentage in taxes is much more valuable to lower earners than it is to higher earners. This is basic tax policy and isn't even terribly controversial in Republican circles.



Haloman800 said:


> Wrong again :^). Let's see if you're man enough to admit it.


It was that comment that made me qualify my statement with _normal guns from normal people_ and _seriously consider_. Let's not get overly nitpicky. I still don't think anyone here is seriously talking about taking away all guns, and regardless, those are not the policy positions being talked about.



Haloman800 said:


> Great ad hominem. Why not try responding without logical fallacies?


It's not an ad hominem fallacy to cite someone's political party identification, which refers explicitly to one's policy positions, as a reason not to elect a specific candidate.



Foxchild said:


> Indeed.  Whether or not their attempts are genuinely altruistic, both political parties are making this worse.  Republican policies tend to favor the rich, to keep them in power.  Democrat policies tend to incentify staying poor by making the hump to get out of poverty harder to get over (there comes a point where making more money harms you because you would lose your govt. benefits, so better to stay where you're at).  Basically, Republicans help the rich stay rich, Dems help the poor stay poor, and both pull resources from whats left of the middle class.


If you think Democratic policies incentivize people being poor and that lower earners generally and willfully stay poor, I honestly have no idea how to respond to that. Regardless of the government benefits you're talking about, they generally pale in comparison to making enough money to no longer qualify.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

OP updated with a few more resources


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> OP updated with a few more resources


My most recent ideology results: http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1004942928

Despite aligning 99% with Bernie Sanders and 92% with Hillary Clinton, I acknowledge that Bernie Sanders has no chance in the Democratic primary nor the general election. I like them both, but Hillary Clinton has my full support.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

Lacius said:


> My most recent ideology results: http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/1004942928
> 
> Despite aligning 99% with Bernie Sanders and 92% with Hillary Clinton, I acknowledge that Bernie Sanders has no chance in the Democratic primary nor the general election. I like them both, but Hillary Clinton has my full support.


Meh, vote in primaries. If I were in your situation I'd say vote for Bernie in primaries and if he doesn't make it to nomination, then fall back on Hillary


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Meh, vote in primaries. If I were in your situation I'd say vote for Bernie in primaries and if he doesn't make it to nomination, then fall back on Hillary


I do vote in primaries, but Bernie isn't going to win regardless of how I vote in the primary. Hillary is and will continue to be too far ahead.

In addition, I will be voting for Hillary in the primary because she has a better chance at winning the general election. The few differences between Hillary and Bernie are not worth taking a chance with Bernie in the general election.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

Lacius said:


> I do vote in primaries, but Bernie isn't going to win regardless of how I vote in the primary. Hillary is and will continue to be too far ahead.
> 
> In addition, I will be voting for Hillary in the primary because she has a better chance at winning the general election. The few differences between Hillary and Bernie are not worth taking a chance with Bernie in the general election.


Fair enough

Also added one more resource, it's a comparison between Democratic and Republican ideals


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 4, 2015)

Lacius said:


> We decided as a country long ago that it is fair to have the people who can afford to pay higher taxes pay more than those who can't.


You have not refuted the fact that the top 5% pays 60% in taxes, which is far more than their "fair share" by any stretch of the imagination.

Let's look at the larger issue. Taxation is theft. The government holding a gun to your head demanding your wallet is no different than a thug on the street doing so.



> I still don't think anyone here is seriously talking about taking away all guns


Once again,


			
				Smuff said:
			
		

> But* my vote would go to whoever promises to get rid of the guns.*


Why not admit you were wrong?



> If you think Democratic policies incentivize people being poor and that lower earners generally and willfully stay poor, I honestly have no idea how to respond to that.


Leftist/liberal policies do keep people poor, 

What you subsidize increases, what you tax diminishes. Socialism is a system which punishes success and rewards failure, you can't change the facts, no matter how much they hurt your feelings :^).[/QUOTE]


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> You have not refuted the fact that the top 5% pays 60% in taxes, which is far more than their "fair share" by any stretch of the imagination.


Assuming for simplicity that your numbers are correct or close to correct, I've already explained how that's the only fair way to do things. Of course tax dollars from millionaires and billionaires are going to overwhelm that tax dollars from lower earners.



Haloman800 said:


> Let's look at the larger issue. Taxation is theft. The government holding a gun to your head demanding your wallet is no different than a thug on the street doing so.


It's not theft when you are not forced to live here. We come together, advocate for policy one way or another, and vote for politicians who help decide tax policy. If you don't like the result, you are free to leave. You can also stay and continue to advocate for tax policy you want. Do not pretend you are being held up at gunpoint. You can leave if you don't want to contribute to society in the form of taxes. But if you're going to live in this society, you have societal obligations. That's the price of admission, and I really can't believe I'm having to explain the basics of taxation. If we allowed everyone to pick and choose what taxes they pay on an individual level, there would be no revenue for anything.



Haloman800 said:


> What you subsidize increases, what you tax diminishes. Socialism is a system which punishes success and rewards failure, you can't change the facts, no matter how much they hurt your feelings :^)


I think I already explained the main problems with this reasoning.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 4, 2015)

Lacius said:


> Assuming for simplicity that your numbers are correct or close to correct, *I've already explained* how that's the only fair way to do things.


Nice cop out.


> Of course tax dollars from millionaires and billionaires are going to overwhelm that tax dollars from lower earners.


I'm glad we're in agreement the rich pay more than their fair share.


> *Do not pretend you are being held up at gunpoint.*


I did not sign a contract stating I will give 50% of my income to whatever politician is in power. If I don't pay my taxes, I will get a series of increasingly threatening letters, followed by a court date, if I don't show up, they will send men with guns to my house to take me to prison. If I resist, they *will* shoot me.


> if you're going to live in this society, you have societal obligations


Nope. I have zero obligation if I have not signed a contract.


> there would be no revenue for anything


Your argument is "Well, the government takes your money and provides services in return!", if a thief demands your wallet, but assures you that he will spend the money for your benefit, would you voluntarily give it to him? Of course not. It's no different when the government does it.


> *I think I already explained* the main problems with this reasoning.


Nice cop out x2. Socialism punishes success and rewards failure, that's an indisputable fact.


----------



## Deboog (Oct 4, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Banning guns only keeps law abiding citizens disarmed. To use the USA as an example, there are 350 million privately owned guns, if you banned them, criminals will still get them, and citizens will be easy targets now that they are unable to defend themselves.


Banning guns has never been about stopping gangs and hardened criminals from getting guns. They will always get guns. It's about 1) suicides, 2) spur of the moment murders, and 3) accidental shootings.

1) Most suicides in the US are from firearms. Okay, I know, you may say well without guns people will just kill themselves some other way. You'd be surprised. 1 in 25 suicide attempts work. Many people attempt suicide in very stupid ways, I don't know if they are caught up in the moment, or can't bring themselves to legitimately risk their life or they're just dumb, but swallowing a bunch of assorted pills in the medicine cabinet will probably not kill them, considering how slow of a death that is and 21st century hospitals and whatnot. When someone shoots themselves with a gun, they are basically guaranteed to die. Getting rid of guns will dramatically increase the number of stupid suicide attempts, and reduce suicide.

2) Yes, gangs will always get guns, but murder sprees by homicidal maniacs and passion fueled murderers often just grab the gun they happen to own. It's one thing to see your wife cheating, grab the gun, and start firing. It's another thing to calmly walk to the gun store, wait a week for a background check, then show up to the guy's house later that Sunday.

3) 600 people accidentally shoot themselves every year in the U.S. That's a pretty small number. It almost isn't even worth considering. But you know what else isn't even worth considering? The number of lives saved in the U.S. by guns. I mean can you find 600 cases of people (regular citizens, not police) using a gun to suppress a murderer, or even a bank robber? Can you even find 6 cases? The idea that guns protect people is just made up. It sounds good on paper, but there just isn't consistent evidence that it's actually a real thing. And that's the thing about gun activists. They don't give a shit about safety. They just like guns. They know that loose gun laws cost lives, but they think that they cost few enough lives to justify their hobby. Of course, nobody admits to this, because "It's okay for a handful of kids to shoot themselves every year so I can take my shotty to the range" doesn't sound as good.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Nice cop out.
> 
> I'm glad we're in agreement the rich pay more than their fair share.
> 
> ...


I don't think you understand how the concept of ownership works. Ownership is a human (and to some extent, non-human animal) invention. We only own things so far as other people agree that we own something. I could claim the entire planet, but it's not going to mean much unless people agree that I own the planet. You are able to own money, items, your house, etc. in part because society agrees that you own those things. You are also reaping other societal benefits from living in this country. For example, people from other societies cannot come here and steal your stuff from you in part because of the protection of the military. If you are going to reap the benefits of living in this society, you have obligations, and you know that you have obligations. You listed the consequences of not paying your taxes, which proves that you have knowledge of your societal obligation. The same goes for other laws. If you don't like it, you are free to leave.

I don't think you understand that I could stop talking about taxation and plug in whatever I want in its place with regard to your supposed reasoning:

_



			I did not sign a contract stating I wouldn't murder people. If I do murder, I will get arrested, followed by a court date, if I don't show up, they will send men with guns to my house to take me to prison. If I resist, they will shoot me.

Nope. I have zero obligation if I have not signed a contract.
		
Click to expand...

_
Also, there is a difference between a cop-out and not wanting to repeat myself.


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 4, 2015)

Oooh.  I want to join the flame war!



Haloman800 said:


> You have not refuted the fact that the top 5% pays 60% in taxes, which is far more than their "fair share" by any stretch of the imagination.



Well, considering that the Federal 2016 budget calls for ~$4 Trillion in spending, then every man, woman, and child in their fair share should pay ~$13,331.  Extrapolate that into just the people working and double that to $26,662.  And that doesn't even cover State budgets.  Oh, you may then want to argue that we should cut spending, but to get to the point where we could expect the poor to pay a "fair share" of the budget let alone start actually paying off the debt and you're left with no army, no social security, no federal medical care of any kind, and no welfare.  Just about then would we be able to fund road repair (postal roads) and pay off the debt.

Or, you know, we could recognize that "fair share" is such a useless concept in itself and what should be discussed are what we consider important in the budget and not and figuring out how to reduce or remove those things that we don't want or need.  That means a lot less war, a lot less federal welfare, a lot more state involvement in welfare (which means higher state taxes), etc.  And it still translates into the rich paying 60% of the taxes or more.  Because oddly if a millionaire pays 60% in taxes, he's still got $400,000 which is a hell of a lot more money to live off of than gross $11,770 (the Federal poverty level for one person in the US) or gross $15,080 (what you'd get at minimum wage working 52 weeks a year, 40 hour weeks).  Unless, you know, you don't believe people who work full time should have any expectation to eat and have a place to live.



Haloman800 said:


> Let's look at the larger issue. Taxation is theft. The government holding a gun to your head demanding your wallet is no different than a thug on the street doing so.



Government is a necessary evil.  Because most people have decided that it's better to have a figurative gun put to their head and pay taxes than have a literal gun put to their head and have anarchy.  If you wish differently, feel free to move to Somalia.

PS1 - The whole talk about "less gun violence in the UK" is a non sequitur.  I don't particularly care if I'm murdered with a gun or a knife.  If I'm dead, I'm dead.  The frightening part in the US is the generally higher levels of violence and murder.  One would do better to remove the gun culture (not the idea one can own a gun but that guns are sign of masculinity, should be touted as a means of violence and not mere defense, etc); but honestly, I think that is a symptom of Americanism in general, so not something that can be directly dealt with.  It's just sad when certain subgroups (rednecks/parents/talking heads blaming rappers/hip hop/rock and roll) for it as if it weren't a problem in the US as a whole. *sigh*

PS2 - The whole discussion of poverty in the US is a problem, anyways.  In a socialist state (which the US is), poverty has a very different meaning to what poverty means elsewhere.  Elsewhere, it means not eating.  It means not having a home but of what scrap you can cobble together.  It means shanty towns and just generally massive insecurity on the most basic level.  In the US and most western countries, there's medical care (if not the best or most immediate), food, and shelter.  It's not the best.  There's a "trap" that oddly a large percentage of people never move "up" in the "social order" and hence live their lives poor, middle, or rich.  Perhaps if we acknowledge that there will also be poverty in terms of a pay check but the standard of living of even the poorest should be high enough and that should be the test of a society.  Because we define in the US poverty at a certain level to judge who needs help to obtain those necessary services.  And the rich pay for them in taxes because the free market can't adequately do the job.

PS3 - One vote DOES make a difference.  Bernie Sanders was put on top by me.  For all those who say they'll vote for Hillary because she's going to win, I'd like you to remember Obama.  Like or hate him, he beat Hillary when everyone treated her as the de facto winner.

PS4 - Given the climate in the US, I think Bernie Sanders would/will be another Jimmy Carter.  A good guy with the right ideas but without a society and by extension a Congress willing to take the steps to actually fix the issues we face.  But, then, who knows.  Perhaps we'll actually see some progress and not merely more fear used to justify atrocious spending.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 4, 2015)

Deboog said:


> Banning guns has never been about stopping gangs and hardened criminals


Then why is it politicians and the media always use mass shootings as their platform for banning guns? Still, let's look at your points.



> 1) Most suicides in the US are from firearms


As you mentioned later in your post, 





> without guns people will just kill themselves some other way.


 If someone wants to kill themselves, they'll find a way. Idiots who commit suicide don't trump my rights to own guns.


> 2) Yes, gangs will always get guns


So will criminals.
3) 600 people accidentally shoot themselves every year in the U.S.[/QUOTE]
And 33,561 accidentally die in car accidents every year. We need to ban assault vehicles, don't you care about the children?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

I was going to make next week's debate about 2nd amendment rights lol looks like we can skip over that one



Haloman800 said:


> And 33,561 accidentally die in car accidents every year. We need to ban assault vehicles, don't you care about the children?


Or enforce better driver education  car crashes are caused by a much broader range of circumstances than gun deaths

Also, just throwing it out there, but I find it interesting that people can say that wealthy people are paying more than their "fair share" while saying that "life isn't fair" to poorer people who can't afford to pay taxes. Food for thought


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2015)

kuwanger said:


> PS3 - One vote DOES make a difference.  Bernie Sanders was put on top by me.  For all those who say they'll vote for Hillary because she's going to win, I'd like you to remember Obama.  Like or hate him, he beat Hillary when everyone treated her as the de facto winner.


There is a significant difference between Hillary vs. Obama and Hillary vs. Bernie. Bernie does not have the support from the demographics he needs in order to beat her. In fact, white liberals are the only demographic he appears to have locked down, and that is unlikely to change. History shows that Democratic primaries almost always include a more left-leaning, non-establishment candidate who doesn't win because he or she cannot court anyone but the white liberals. This is why Bernie is unlikely to do well in many places outside New Hampshire and Vermont. Obama did well as an alternative candidate because he was able to court non-white Democrats and war-weary Democrats/moderates who did not like that Hillary initially voted for the Iraq War.

That's not the say that one shouldn't vote for Bernie. If you like Bernie, vote for Bernie. Each vote matters. I am personally voting for Hillary in the primary because I like her too, I see the differences between Hillary and Bernie as negligible, and I think she has a better chance of winning against the Republican candidate in November.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

Lacius said:


> Bernie does not have the support from the demographics he needs in order to beat her.


He has Iowa currently, which is HUGE in the long run. We (Iowa) can determine the race with the help of a few other major states, depending on how big the swing is. But as I said, vote who you will, I just want to make sure you're not voting for Hillary because you're discouraged


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 4, 2015)

Lacius said:


> We only own things so far as other people agree that we own something.


The right to ownership comes from first principles, not public opinion. 1. You own yourself, therefore 2. You own what you create. These are derived from philosophy and the Socratic method. It can be summed up in the non-aggression principle (NAP) which states the initiation of force is immoral.

Taxation is the initiation of force and therefore is immoral.


> I did not sign a contract stating I wouldn't murder people.



Murder violates property rights and the NAP. People still get murdered in a statist society. Cops (government agents) murder people, too. Your point is irrelevant.


> You are also reaping other societal benefits from living in this country. For example, people from other societies cannot come here and steal your stuff from you in part because of the protection of the military.


"People from other societies can't steal from you because the government is already stealing from you!" Great logic, bro. Pic related







> Also, there is a difference between a cop-out and not wanting to repeat myself.


To repeat yourself, you have to post a response to begin with, which you have failed to do so in those cases.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> He has Iowa currently, which is HUGE in the long run. We (Iowa) can determine the race with the help of a few other major states, depending on how big the swing is. But as I said, vote who you will, I just want to make sure you're not voting for Hillary because you're discouraged


 It's not huge in the long run. Iowa's Democrats are largely white liberals. It's one of the reasons Obama did so well there in 2008. It's not as much as New Hampshire and Vermont, but it's enough that it could make a difference for Bernie. However, it's probably not enough of a contiguous block for him to win there, but I could be wrong. In the latest polls, Hillary in winning in Iowa. Looking at the polls with the best track records there, Hillary is consistently winning. However, it is too early to tell. I almost added Iowa to my above list with New Hampshire and Vermont but decided not to for the reasons listed above. Regardless, those three states won't be enough for Bernie to beat Hillary, and they are not indicative of any national trends for the reasons I listed above.



Haloman800 said:


> The right to ownership comes from first principles, not public opinion. 1. You own yourself, therefore 2. You own what you create. These are derived from philosophy and the Socratic method. It can be summed up in the non-aggression principle (NAP) which states the initiation of force is immoral.


It's force that keeps other people from stealing your stuff through force. You are directly benefiting from living in a society that supports property ownership. I also haven't said anything about morality. I'm talking about how ownership works, not how it should idealistically work.



Haloman800 said:


> Taxation is the initiation of force and therefore is immoral.


Force is not inherently immoral. Self-defense, for example, is an example of force that is not immoral. When the price of admission for living in a particular society and reaping its benefits is taxation via representation, you're the one who is stealing when you refuse to pay taxes.



Haloman800 said:


> Murder violates property rights and the NAP. People still get murdered in a statist society. Cops (government agents) murder people, too. Your point is irrelevant.


My example is not irrelevant when it demonstrates the fundamental problems with using "I did not sign a contract" as your reasoning.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 4, 2015)

kuwanger said:


> Well, considering that the Federal 2016 budget calls for ~$4 Trillion in spending


 4 trillion too much.


> Oh, you may then want to argue that we should cut spending


Yes, the government should stop spending money it steals from citizens. It should also stop stealing from them to begin with.


> no *social security*, no *federal medical care *of any kind


There's no money in social security, and federal healthcare is an absolute trainwreck. Veterans (who get federal healthcare) have to wait 4 or 5 days to see a doctor.


> Just about then would we be able to fund road repair


Private roads are more efficient and cost less. Canada and USA already have these. If "public roads" ended tomorrow, private roads would fill the void.


> and pay off the debt.


It's not my responsibility to pay off debt I didn't accrue.



> And it still translates into the rich paying 60% of the taxes or more


60% too much. Taxation is theft. You are not entitled to one cent I earn.



> Government is... *evil*


Fixed.


> Because most people have decided that it's better to have a figurative gun put to their head and pay taxes than have a *literal gun put to their head* and have anarchy.


The government puts a literal gun to your head if you don't pay them protection money (taxes). They are no different from the mafia.


> If you wish differently, feel free to move to Somalia.


Somalia is an Islamic caliphate, I love it when liberals bring it up as an example of a stateless society.



> PS1 - The whole talk about "less gun violence in the UK" is a non sequitur.  I don't particularly care if I'm murdered with a gun or a knife.  If I'm dead, I'm dead.  The frightening part in the* US is the generally higher levels of violence and murder.*


 Different ethnic groups commit different levels of crime. For example, blacks are 13% of the US population, yet they commit over 50% of all murders. Only 3% of the UK is black, so a lower homicide rate is expected.

Source on homicide by ethnicity: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...w-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data


> PS2 - And the rich pay for [welfare] in taxes because the free market can't adequately do the job.


Private charity does a much better job at (actually) helping the poor than government welfare does, which creates a permanent dependent underclass (which is what liberals want, a population dependent on the government so they can always count on their votes).[/quote][/QUOTE]


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Yes, the government should stop spending money it steals from citizens. It should also stop stealing from them to begin with.


So you support reduced funding for the military as well, right?


----------



## Ericzander (Oct 4, 2015)

I answered every question from the OP except for the last one (who would I vote for if the election was today) because I didn't want it to affect my results.  I also was too lazy to move the bar from least to most so basically I care about every issue equally.  I also always picked something different than just yes and no (I always picked one of the extra options, except maybe 2-3 times).  


Aaaaaaand it turns out I'm apparently 88% democrat (83% Bernie Sanders).  But I am also a pretty entitled and lazy person in real life so that might explain it.  The Ericzander of five years ago would have certainly been 80% republican.  They also said I had no issues with Trump which I would strongly disagree with.  I should probably go back and rank the questions but it didn't save my spot and I don't really wanna take it again.  If you were to ask me beforehand what I considered myself I would have said about 60% democrat and 40% republican.  Again, I think that if I actually ranked the issues the results would have changed.  And I can also tell you that I think both Clinton and Trump are monsters, but if it came down to just them I have to vote for Trump.  

This whole time I've been wondering if I should vote against Clinton in the primary by voting for Sanders or against Trump by voting for Bush/Carson (whichever is doing better at the time).  Looks like this thing is telling me I should vote Sanders.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 4, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So you support reduced funding for the military as well, right?


I support an end of taxation altogether. Military can be funded without the use of violence (which is what taxation is, the initiation of force).

You may think "Well, if everyone isn't FORCED to pay for [service], then no one will pay", which is incorrect. People voluntarily tip waiters even though they're aware not everyone will tip them. People voluntarily donate to charity even though they're aware not everyone will donate.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

Lacius said:


> It's not huge in the long run. Iowa's Democrats are largely white liberals. It's one of the reasons Obama did so well there in 2008. It's not as much as New Hampshire and Vermont, but it's enough that it could make a difference for Bernie. However, it's probably not enough of a contiguous block for him to win there, but I could be wrong. In the latest polls, Hillary in winning in Iowa. Looking at the polls with the best track records there, Hillary is consistently winning. However, it is too early to tell. I almost added Iowa to my above list with New Hampshire and Vermont but decided not to for the reasons listed above. Regardless, those three states won't be enough for Bernie to beat Hillary, and they are not indicative of any national trends for the reasons I listed above.


Huh, you're right, I guess I don't keep up with polls as much as I thought I did  I was thinking of mid-September when they both shared 37%, and figured he would have continued climbing


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 4, 2015)

Ericzander said:


> Aaaaaaand it turns out I'm apparently 88% democrat (83% Bernie Sanders).  But I am also a pretty entitled and lazy person in real life so that might explain it.



I'm glad you're honest about it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> I'm glad you're honest about it.


Careful, I'm not going to condone personal attacks. I've been pretty lenient until now but be respectful (That goes for everyone else as well, I know it isn't just you)


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 4, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Careful, I'm not going to condone personal attacks. I've been pretty lenient until now but be respectful (That goes for everyone else as well, I know it isn't just you)


Where have I insulted anyone? He stated he's "pretty lazy and entitled" in real life, that's his words, not mine.


----------



## VinsCool (Oct 4, 2015)

Meanwhile in canada, there are 4 main parties.

3 are fighting for bullshiting everyone, while the other one is a useless block of idiots xD


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Where have I insulted anyone? He stated he's "pretty lazy and entitled" in real life, that's his words, not mine.


No need to get defensive, that was a general warning. However there's a difference between making fun of oneself and making fun of others. I want to keep this thread clean if possible (well, as clean as a political debate can be I guess). I'd like to be able to continue this series into the future without getting shut down by a mod


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 4, 2015)

Lacius said:


> In fact, white liberals are the only demographic he appears to have locked down, and that is unlikely to change. History shows that Democratic primaries almost always include a more left-leaning, non-establishment candidate who doesn't win because he or she cannot court anyone but the white liberals. This is why Bernie is unlikely to do well in many places outside New Hampshire and Vermont. Obama did well as an alternative candidate because he was able to court non-white Democrats and war-weary Democrats/moderates who did not like that Hillary initially voted for the Iraq War.



Fun fact but Bernie Sanders appeared on The Nightly Show so at least he's trying to court the liberal non-white Democrats.  But, yea, I agree that it's a hard challenge to face an establishment, mostly-center Democrat when you're a left-leaning, non-establishment candidate. 



Lacius said:


> That's not the say that one shouldn't vote for Bernie. If you like Bernie, vote for Bernie. Each vote matters. I am personally voting for Hillary in the primary because I like her too, I see the differences between Hillary and Bernie as negligible, and I think she has a better chance of winning against the Republican candidate in November.



Well, that's why I said my vote matters.   Although I'd readily admit I don't think he'd like win against a Republican candidate.  Meanwhile, I do see the differences between Hillary and Bernie as non-negligible, especially when it comes to violent video games.  Sadly I'm not able to quickly find out Bernie Sanders position on violent video games, so *shrug*.  Perhaps the differences are really negligible.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2015)

kuwanger said:


> Fun fact but Bernie Sanders appeared on The Nightly Show so at least he's trying to court the liberal non-white Democrats.  But, yea, I agree that it's a hard challenge to face an establishment, mostly-center Democrat when you're a left-leaning, non-establishment candidate.


Like her or not, Hillary is one of the strongest candidates to ever emerge for a party's nomination for president. She has extremely high name recognition, she had high approval ratings as Secretary of State, and she is dealing with a relatively weak field of Democrats, like them or not. Bernie won't win.



kuwanger said:


> Well, that's why I said my vote matters.   Although I'd readily admit I don't think he'd like win against a Republican candidate.  Meanwhile, I do see the differences between Hillary and Bernie as non-negligible, especially when it comes to violent video games.  Sadly I'm not able to quickly find out Bernie Sanders position on violent video games, so *shrug*.  Perhaps the differences are really negligible.


In my opinion, Hillary and Bernie share most if not all of the same policy positions that matter to me: climate change, income inequality, LGBT rights, gun control, health care, reproductive rights, immigration reform, military spending, money in politics, etc.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

Lacius said:


> In my opinion, Hillary and Bernie share most if not all of the same policy positions that matter to me: climate change, income inequality, LGBT rights, gun control, health care, reproductive rights, immigration reform, military spending, money in politics, etc.


The difference that I've noticed between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton is that Sanders has had the same views for as long as he's been publicly recorded, whereas Clinton's views seem to change with convenience. It's the same as, say, Ben Carson and Donald Trump, Carson has never claimed to be anything he isn't, but Trump has drastically changed his views from more Democratic to Republican over the last few years for convenience of popularity (and I suppose so that he could protect his profits while remaining consistent with his views)


----------



## VinsCool (Oct 4, 2015)

I can't believe that some people actually voted for Trump in the Poll ._.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

VinsCool said:


> I can't believe that some people actually voted for Trump in the Poll ._.


It's actually kind of mirroring the national average, which is both interesting and slightly unexpected. When the poll started there was kind of a rush of liberal votes but conservative votes have been slowly trickling in ever since


----------



## Deboog (Oct 4, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The difference that I've noticed between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton is that Sanders has had the same views for as long as he's been publicly recorded, whereas Clinton's views seem to change with convenience. It's the same as, say, Ben Carson and Donald Trump, Carson has never claimed to be anything he isn't, but Trump has drastically changed his views from more Democratic to Republican over the last few years for convenience of popularity (and I suppose so that he could protect his profits while remaining consistent with his views)


Yeah I will agree that Bernie's views are consistent, but some of his views are bullshitty. Like he has been dodging talking about an actual tax plan the whole time. More free things. Yes that sounds nice, but how? Get the rich to pay more. Yes yes but how much more? He either hasn't nailed it down, or I think more likely, doesn't want to admit right away how much he'd like to hike up taxes. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with tax hikes, but Bernie just refuses to talk about tax specifics, and that's scary.

Hillary on the other hand is happy to talk about policy and specifics (she was Secretary of State after all) but her specifics are next to meaningless because they are subject to change to whatever the general consensus is with Democrats. To be fair, some people love that in Congress. Some people vote for a representative that they feel will just put aside personal ideals do what the district wants. We've never had a president like that though.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 4, 2015)

Deboog said:


> Yeah I will agree that Bernie's views are consistent, but some of his views are bullshitty. Like he has been dodging talking about an actual tax plan the whole time. More free things. Yes that sounds nice, but how? Get the rich to pay more. Yes yes but how much more? He either hasn't nailed it down, or I think more likely, doesn't want to admit right away how much he'd like to hike up taxes. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with tax hikes, but Bernie just refuses to talk about tax specifics, and that's scary.


I agree. He has vaguely said a few things about "college being free for everyone if tax on the top 1% was raised only 0.5%", so while he doesn't ever get specific it's not like he refuses to talk about it. I will say that this is a very valid point though


----------



## Ericzander (Oct 5, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> I'm glad you're honest about it.


I'm a college student in debt.  I'm sure that once I make it out of here and get a job that pays well and end up in a higher tax bracket I'll go back to being pissed about taxes and government intervention.  Really, I align with the dems socially.  Pro gay marriage, abortion, weed, all that fun stuff.  Though I'm not a fan of Obamacare or overtaxing companies.


TotalInsanity4 said:


> Careful, I'm not going to condone personal attacks. I've been pretty lenient until now but be respectful (That goes for everyone else as well, I know it isn't just you)


I didn't take offense to it.  Thought it was pretty funny, but yeah good for you wanting to keep this thread decent.  I know that with political threads it's nearly impossible to do!  


VinsCool said:


> Meanwhile in canada, there are 4 main parties.
> 
> 3 are fighting for bullshiting everyone, while the other one is a useless block of idiots xD


I want to give you a hug buddy guy friend.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> The difference that I've noticed between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton is that Sanders has had the same views for as long as he's been publicly recorded, whereas Clinton's views seem to change with convenience. It's the same as, say, Ben Carson and Donald Trump, Carson has never claimed to be anything he isn't, but Trump has drastically changed his views from more Democratic to Republican over the last few years for convenience of popularity (and I suppose so that he could protect his profits while remaining consistent with his views)


See and this is exactly why I dislike both Clinton and Trump and am fans of both Sanders and Carson.  People say that Hilary is a strong advocate for gay rights.  Tell that to 2008.

That said when it comes to Carson vs Sanders... Even though that poll says that I'm Sanders leaning, I think that Carson actually has a decent plan while Sanders just says a lot of pretty things without a whole lot of meat (like Obama).


----------



## Ericzander (Oct 5, 2015)

So this time I adjusted the bars (didn't change answers) and I'm apparently equal parts socialist and libertarian... Is... Is that even possible?  I think there's something wrong here.  WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME!

Here's the thing that the quiz doesn't account for though... How you actually feel about the candidate.  So yeah I probably agree with Sanders on a lot of issues but I honestly don't think he'd be an effective president.  Just like I _apparently _agree with Clinton on several issues but I would never want her to be president.  And now my top republican candidate is Mike Huckabee...  Which makes no sense to me.  He was like at the bottom of the list the first time I took it haha.  

SCREW THE QUIZ Ben Carson 2016!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 5, 2015)

Ericzander said:


> So this time I adjusted the bars (didn't change answers) and I'm apparently equal parts socialist and libertarian... Is... Is that even possible?  I think there's something wrong here.  WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME!
> 
> Here's the thing that the quiz doesn't account for though... How you actually feel about the candidate.  So yeah I probably agree with Sanders on a lot of issues but I honestly don't think he'd be an effective president.  Just like I _apparently _agree with Clinton on several issues but I would never want her to be president.  And now my top republican candidate is Mike Huckabee...  Which makes no sense to me.  He was like at the bottom of the list the first time I took it haha.
> 
> SCREW THE QUIZ Ben Carson 2016!


Yeah, that can happen, I come out as "Independent Centrist" every time I take any of those political quizzes which effectively means "you can go with basically anyone and be equally screwed lulz"

Also I should mention the reason I linked the quiz is not necessarily to be told who to vote for, but what issues you agree or disagree with for certain candidates


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 5, 2015)

Ooh Haloman800 in full on rant mode. Love these threads.



Haloman800 said:


> Then why is it politicians and the media always use mass shootings as their platform for banning guns? Still, let's look at your points.
> 
> As you mentioned later in your post,  If someone wants to kill themselves, they'll find a way. Idiots who commit suicide don't trump my rights to own guns.
> 
> ...



On suicide and "another way"... except they don't, at least not as effectively -- there is a reason nets are put up under bridges/trains are isolated from various platforms, many people use pills as a cry for attention, unless you apply some medical knowledge (horizontal slashes across your wrists will work but is hard and does seem to be the more common way), guzzling bleach tends to leave you with a sore throat and a wicked rash but still alive to communicate through it all... not all gunshots are fatal but effectiveness, immediacy and ease of use is high. All sorts of things are banned for percentage probability type reasons -- many drugs are banned despite some even being non chemically addictive at normal doses, however they seem to get banned because some people can not handle their shit and do things they should not when impaired. Interestingly though banning does not seem to work the best there, or at least not US style banning, where such things would seem to work OK for weapons. Back on suicide then intervention is quite effective in many cases if you survive or even never get there in the first place, rather more difficult to talk someone through a blown off head.

But cars/vehicles have many very useful alternative uses and indeed the economy is pretty dependant upon transport. Also come back to me in about 20 years (assuming you have not died in a hail of gunfire) when self driving cars are all the rage and try to advocate for manuals then. The main reason for owning weapons tends to boil down to it is fun, and I can certainly get onboard with that, but the question that then gets asked tends to be at what cost does this fun come.

On mass shootings then places that ban them do seem to see a reduction in them, Australia being one of the more noted examples. Most times I see stats there brought up people seem to latch onto the none since the ban thing and that is a very nice stat which I hope sticks, much of that would be quite a bit

On criminals then yeah they can. I do not know the specifics for unregistered weapons around you (it varies by state, even county and how much you might have pissed off the local sheriff/prosecutor) but it is considerably less harsh than the UK. Said harshness does seem to be a fairly effect counter measure in most places that have tried it.

There are other comments from other posts, the border one actually made me laugh, but I will start with that. Though I think I will also end with a comedy video


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 5, 2015)

I hate everyone really I mean

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

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

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

Trump : you know

Bush : to.much like W

Carly : she sucked at HP and has no political experience

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

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

Personally im mixed but I don't like either party I mean I'm pro gun control but lean pro life on abortion. I think privatization of ss is a bad idea. I think free community college is also a bad idea


I guess I'm the majority who hates both parties but admits both have good ideas


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> "liberal rant"


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 :^)?


----------



## Hungry Friend (Oct 5, 2015)

*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 (Oct 5, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2015)

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 (Oct 5, 2015)

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



RevPokemon said:


> 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.



RevPokemon said:


> 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!



RevPokemon said:


> 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.



RevPokemon said:


> Trump : you know


We all know.



RevPokemon said:


> 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.



RevPokemon said:


> 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



RevPokemon said:


> 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.



RevPokemon said:


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


Truth.


----------



## Flame (Oct 5, 2015)

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 (Oct 5, 2015)

Flame said:


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


Actually Russia has about as many nukes as us.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 5, 2015)

Flame said:


> I NEED MY GUNS! IF WE GET INVADED BY ANOTHER NATION!
> 
> *>has more nukes than the other nations nukes put together.*
> 
> ...



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 (Oct 5, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> 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 (Oct 5, 2015)

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 (Oct 6, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> 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 (Oct 6, 2015)

@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 (Oct 6, 2015)

kuwanger said:


> 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 (Oct 6, 2015)

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 (Oct 6, 2015)

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 (Oct 7, 2015)

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 (Oct 7, 2015)

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 (Oct 7, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> 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 ---------------------------



AlanJohn said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2015)

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 (Oct 7, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> 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 (Oct 7, 2015)

AlanJohn said:


> 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


----------



## Hungry Friend (Oct 7, 2015)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> 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"



I don't think either should be restricted. I get restricting fucking RPGs, and various fully automatic weapons but you get what I mean. Also, people should be able to marry whoever they want. No matter what peoples' religious opinions are, we're supposed to have a separation of church and state.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 7, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> I don't think either should be restricted. I get restricting fucking RPGs, and various fully automatic weapons but you get what I mean. Also, people should be able to marry whoever they want. No matter what peoples' religious opinions are, we're supposed to have a separation of church and state.


As for marriage, I agree 100%. I mean I plan on being a Baptist preacher one day and can say the Scotus descesion made me very happy to know I can Marry same gender couples and bless their relationship. 

Also I have to say that even what some say that it will result in every one being forced to marry same sex couples is bs. I mean many churchs and ministers have the right to forbid marriages to divorced couples and others formid rites like communion to people who are gay, divorced, had an abortion or what not. 

Ultimately I have to say the freedom to marry does not hurt your religious rights rather it helps them by allowing people of faith to marry their partner and clergy the right to officiate these marriages


----------



## mgrev (Oct 7, 2015)

i'm not M'erican. i've heard all of tha shit about Donald trump, so anything else than him(like deez nuts)


----------



## Tjessx (Oct 8, 2015)

I hear everyone saying that trump would be the wordt pressident. And before i ever saw him, or heard him talking i actually thought it would be a good idea if a business men would become president. 
However, from the moment i saw him i think he has mental problems, and i woudl defenilty vote on him now!
Imagine how funny it would be xd


----------



## Hungry Friend (Oct 8, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> As for marriage, I agree 100%. I mean I plan on being a Baptist preacher one day and can say the Scotus descesion made me very happy to know I can Marry same gender couples and bless their relationship.
> 
> Also I have to say that even what some say that it will result in every one being forced to marry same sex couples is bs. I mean many churchs and ministers have the right to forbid marriages to divorced couples and others formid rites like communion to people who are gay, divorced, had an abortion or what not.
> 
> Ultimately I have to say the freedom to marry does not hurt your religious rights rather it helps them by allowing people of faith to marry their partner and clergy the right to officiate these marriages



Since you're planning on becoming a preacher you likely know infinitely more about the Bible and Christianity than I do, but as a fellow Christian, isn't the entire faith supposed to be about redemption and forgiveness of sins rather than judging people for getting divorced, being gay, bi, trans etc? People who claim to be Christians who do nothing but judge others are missing the point, so in short I agree with you.

Also I think Trump is a narcissistic clown.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 8, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> I don't think either should be restricted. I get restricting fucking RPGs, and various fully automatic weapons but you get what I mean. Also, people should be able to marry whoever they want. No matter what peoples' religious opinions are, we're supposed to have a separation of church and state.


I agree, the government should have nothing to do with marriage, that includes forcing churches to go against their religious beliefs and marry homosexual couples.

No one should be forced at the point of a gun to do anything that contradicts their beliefs. This shouldn't be a controversial statement.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Oct 8, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> I agree, the government should have nothing to do with marriage, that includes forcing churches to go against their religious beliefs and marry homosexual couples.
> 
> No one should be forced at the point of a gun to do anything that contradicts their beliefs. This shouldn't be a controversial statement.



I agree that no clergy should be forced to marry gay couples if it goes against their beliefs regardless of whether I agree with them or not, and it's not a controversial statement. You can disagree with someone and still support their right to exercise their beliefs.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 8, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> Since you're planning on becoming a preacher you likely know infinitely more about the Bible and Christianity than I do, but as a fellow Christian, isn't the entire faith supposed to be about redemption and forgiveness of sins rather than judging people for getting divorced, being gay, bi, trans etc? People who claim to be Christians who do nothing but judge others are missing the point, so in short I agree with you.


Christians are supposed to practice righteous judgement, and there's a difference between judging and not agreeing with something. I'm also not cool with beastiality, it doesn't mean I'm "judging" them or that I'm a "beast-o-phobe".



> Also I think Trump is a narcissistic clown.


Prove he's a "narcissistic clown", then you won't need the adjectives.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 8, 2015)

On compelling marriages in a church then I would agree, if the legal aspect of a church marriage was removed. If you want to perform a legally binding ceremony then it kind of has to be allowable to all that are allowed by the state to do so. Do whatever rituals you like to those wishing to partake, possibly even call it church/temple/religiousbuilding marriage if you want, but if you want the legally binding stuff to come into play then you get to play by other rules.

"I'm also not cool with beastiality, it doesn't mean I'm "judging" them or that I'm a "beast-o-phobe"."
By the law of the land though bestiality is not legal. Quite legal and acceptable to slip it into anybody that consents regardless of gender though.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Oct 9, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Christians are supposed to practice righteous judgement, and there's a difference between judging and not agreeing with something. I'm also not cool with beastiality, it doesn't mean I'm "judging" them or that I'm a "beast-o-phobe".
> 
> 
> Prove he's a "narcissistic clown", then you won't need the adjectives.



First off, I'd say the clown comment is so self evident and obvious that I don't even need evidence, and you know there's no way for me to PROVE he has narcissistic personality disorder. I have no idea and I said that just to give people my general opinion of the guy. He loves him some attention, even moreso than most politicians and I'll leave it at that, but I've also never met the man so I wasn't actually seriously trying to diagnose him with a psychological disorder. Just my personal sentiment, and I hope he doesn't win the nomination.

As far as righteous judgment, I try to(but often fail) to follow the quote "he who has not sinned may throw the first stone" and I have certainly committed a lot of sins. Also comparing gay people to those who fuck animals is a little crazy dude. A gay couple still consists of 2 human being, and I doubt you're as grossed out by hot lesbians making out as you are 2 big hairy men doing weird butt stuff


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 9, 2015)

Hungry Friend said:


> First off, I'd say the clown comment is so self evident and obvious that I don't even need evidence, and you know there's no way for me to PROVE he has narcissistic personality disorder. I have no idea and I said that just to give people my general opinion of the guy. He loves him some attention, even moreso than most politicians and I'll leave it at that, but I've also never met the man so I wasn't actually seriously trying to diagnose him with a psychological disorder. Just my personal sentiment, and I hope he doesn't win the nomination.
> 
> As far as righteous judgment, I try to(but often fail) to follow the quote "he who has not sinned may throw the first stone" and I have certainly committed a lot of sins. Also comparing gay people to those who fuck animals is a little crazy dude. A gay couple still consists of 2 human being, and I doubt you're as grossed out by hot lesbians making out as you are 2 big hairy men doing weird butt stuff


Understand judgement (even if righteous) is totally based upon each person. What I find to be godly biblical and what not may not be what other people find the same since everyone has different judgement and opinions. Likewise there is no one way to interpert holy Scriptures so that is also subjective.

Ultimately through my judgement I find problems with those who hate lbgt persons but that is my own judgement which I feel is part of my spiritual knowledge as revealed by God.

Likewise as im sure you know there are many groups that in Christianity that support lbgt rights as they do Believe in THEIR judgement they are compelled to help support the oppressed as Jesus did and that includes gays who are treated like bs.



FAST6191 said:


> On compelling marriages in a church then I would agree, if the legal aspect of a church marriage was removed. If you want to perform a legally binding ceremony then it kind of has to be allowable to all that are allowed by the state to do so. Do whatever rituals you like to those wishing to partake, possibly even call it church/temple/religiousbuilding marriage if you want, but if you want the legally binding stuff to come into play then you get to play by other rules.
> 
> "I'm also not cool with beastiality, it doesn't mean I'm "judging" them or that I'm a "beast-o-phobe"."
> By the law of the land though bestiality is not legal. Quite legal and acceptable to slip it into anybody that consents regardless of gender though.


agree

Personally I think there should be no legal church .marriage only a ceremony (like baptism or what not) and leave the legal marriage to the government.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 9, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> On compelling marriages in a church then I would agree, if the legal aspect of a church marriage was removed. If you want to perform a legally binding ceremony then it kind of has to be allowable to all that are allowed by the state to do so. Do whatever rituals you like to those wishing to partake, possibly even call it church/temple/religiousbuilding marriage if you want, but if you want the legally binding stuff to come into play then you get to play by other rules.


Except, according to the Constitution, religious individuals are allowed to practice their beliefs without being forced to contradict them. Also, as I stated earlier, there shouldn't be anything "legal" about marriage, it's a religious institution, the government shouldn't have anything to do with it (separation of Church and state).



> "I'm also not cool with beastiality, it doesn't mean I'm "judging" them or that I'm a "beast-o-phobe"."
> By the law of the land though bestiality is not legal. Quite legal and acceptable to slip it into anybody that consents regardless of gender though.


 Beastiality is legal in 18 states, I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make. Legality doesn't = morality; slavery was once legal (and still is) in many parts of the world.

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



Hungry Friend said:


> First off, I'd say the clown comment is so self evident and obvious that I don't even need evidence


"X is so self evidence, I don't need evidence"
I've never heard of a clown that's made 4-10 billion dollars, have you?


> Also comparing gay people to those who fuck animals is a little crazy dude. A gay couple still consists of 2 human being


I'm also against incest, which I doubt you'd defend, even though it's also a voluntary agreement between consenting adults, but we're getting off topic here, I don't want this thread to get shut down.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 9, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Except, according to the Constitution, religious individuals are allowed to practice their beliefs without being forced to contradict them. Also, as I stated earlier, there shouldn't be anything "legal" about marriage, it's a religious institution, the government shouldn't have anything to do with it (separation of Church and state).
> 
> Beastiality is legal in 18 states, I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make. Legality doesn't = morality; slavery was once legal (and still is) in many parts of the world.
> 
> ...



How would they be forced to contradict them if they are not performing a legal act but a spiritual one? If you are going to be an avenue for some kind of legal act then discrimination gets kind of hard to justify. It does not preclude churches from being able to perform the legal act alongside a spiritual one either if they can agree to fall in line with the legal stance. Likewise marriage is not exclusively a religious institution, history gets odd there (religions and governments both co-opting the concept to various ends) but even without that many would consider much of the value in it to be the legal things that it affords.

I had false assumed bestiality was illegal everywhere in the US, like it in basically everywhere else and where it is not illegal it is hardly condoned. That was my bad, however I am not sure my point suffered too much for it.

Legality may not = morality, however it is the baseline by which we all agree to live. Slavery is also contrary to basically all of international law.

As for Mr Trump he might have made a packet over the course of things, I understand he has/his ventures have also gone bankrupt several times as well, and though I will have to go further I believe a few of them were not necessarily of the far more acceptable "you took a risk and it did not pay off". It can be an accepted strategy/part of business but there is a reason bankruptcy is considered at various points in finance and other things. Likewise having money does not preclude one from suspect behaviours 

If we are going to have to establish a pattern we will be here a while longer but I do not envisage it being especially difficult.
Whether this changes what an eventual leadership position might play out like could be up for debate -- I am a complete cunt most of the time but I can still fix something I can fix in spite of that.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 9, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> How would they be forced to contradict them if they are not performing a legal act but a spiritual one?


By forcing Church officials to contradict their beliefs and wed homosexual couples, incestual couples, polygamous couples, etc.


> I had false assumed bestiality was illegal everywhere in the US, like it in basically everywhere else and where it is not illegal it is hardly condoned. That was my bad, however I am not sure my point suffered too much for it.


Making factually incorrect claims doesn't hurt your position?


> Legality may not = morality, however it is the baseline by which we all agree to live. Slavery is also contrary to basically all of international law.


And yet slavery is still practiced today in many African/Arab/Asian countries. 


> As for Mr Trump he might have made a packet over the course of things, I understand he has/his ventures have also gone bankrupt several times as well


He has owned hundreds of companies, out of those, 4 times he has utilized the laws of bankruptcy to gain an advantage. If you think that's "unfair" or "cheating", blame the government for putting those laws in place.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 9, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Except, according to the Constitution, religious individuals are allowed to practice their beliefs without being forced to contradict them. Also, as I stated earlier, there shouldn't be anything "legal" about marriage, it's a religious institution, the government shouldn't have anything to do with it (separation of Church and state).
> 
> Beastiality is legal in 18 states, I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make. Legality doesn't = morality; slavery was once legal (and still is) in many parts of the world.
> 
> ...





Haloman800 said:


> By forcing Church officials to contradict their beliefs and wed homosexual couples, incestual couples, polygamous couples, etc.
> 
> Making factually incorrect claims doesn't hurt your position?
> 
> ...



1. Churches legally are denying certain rights to sacraments to people daily and get away with it. So it is safe to say this will stay the same.

2. Slavery is practiced illegally or turn the other way. I mean but to say it is illegal means people don't do it is wrong.

3. Utilizing bankruptcy to " get ahead" is a horriblethings people do because they don't want to face the music


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 9, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> 1. Churches legally are denying certain rights to sacraments to people daily


Access to sacraments is not a "right".



> 2. Slavery is practiced illegally or turn the other way. I mean but to say it is illegal means people don't do it is wrong.


Slavery is legal where it is practiced most widely.



> 3. Utilizing bankruptcy to " get ahead" is a horriblethings people do because they don't want to face the music


Emotional arguments will get you nowhere. If you don't like the laws, blame government officials, not people utilizing them.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 9, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> Access to sacraments is not a "right".
> 
> 
> Slavery is legal where it is practiced most widely.
> ...


1. I'm saying that the government isn't forcing people to marry anyone

2. Slavery is either practiced behind the backs or in another form. But fast is right as international laws prohibit it

3. I get what you mean but it is still fed up to do bankruptcy to get ahead.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 9, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> 1. I'm saying that the government isn't forcing people to marry anyone


Oh yes they are.


> 2. Slavery is either practiced behind the backs or in another form. But fast is right as international laws prohibit it


Countries are only subject to "international law" if they choose to follow it. International law is one set of countries attempting to impose their will on the other set(s) of countries.


> 3. I get what you mean but it is still fed up to do bankruptcy to get ahead.


Sure, so blame the government, not Trump. Also, the fact remains that bankruptcy isn't immoral, even if you consider it unfair.


----------



## kuwanger (Oct 9, 2015)

One, there is no discussion about forcing churches to marriage homosexuals, polygamists, etc.  There has been repeated discussions about commercial enterprises (or charitable ones) which have tried to use religion as a basis to deny people service.  To them I say the obvious, "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's".  This holds true for marriage licenses (as they are State issued), paying taxes (again, the face of "Caesar" (aka Washington, et al) is on them), etc.

Two, slavery can't logically be legal because it inherently says the absurd.  One can enter into slavery because to be a slave of another is to forfeit all rights, privileges, etc and hence no bargain can be reached that cannot be usurped by the new owner of the one.  Meanwhile, slavery under prison terms are (at least) hypothetically limited in duration and are a form of restitution for a crime against society/people.  Of course it ends up not being done correctly because of ridiculous prison terms and ridiculous wages (that are applied to restitution).  In the end, prison ends up behaving like indentured servitude where the corruption of it turns it into a system that desires recidivism to continue the enslavement.



> Emotional arguments will get you nowhere. If you don't like the laws, blame government officials, not people utilizing them.



Funny but you don't accept the opposite when it comes to taxes which are the laws and have as much legitimacy as bankruptcy.  Both are inherently forced violations of implied or explicit contracts--in fact bankruptcy is worse precisely because it's explicit.  Having said that, bankruptcy is preferable to debtors prisons or as above other corrupt systems to enslave people for life.


----------



## Deboog (Oct 9, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> I agree, the government should have nothing to do with marriage, that includes forcing churches to go against their religious beliefs and marry homosexual couples.
> 
> No one should be forced at the point of a gun to do anything that contradicts their beliefs. This shouldn't be a controversial statement.


I would be appalled to hear that a church was forced to marry a homosexual couple. You're absolutely right. That would go against our constitution.
I don't think the government allowing gays to marry infringes on people's religious freedom's though. I mean, you can say that official government marriages are bad and wrong, and I can't say that you're wrong. I just hope you realize that if you lose marriage licensees you also lose joint tax filing, equal share of responsibility's for a child's guardians, easy transfer of wealth if someone dies without a will, etc. So if you really think that we need to replace all that stuff with laws that don't rely on tracking marriages, fine. Otherwise, we need marriage licenses. And if we have marriage licenses then they can't be linked to religious beliefs (separation of church and state) and so we have to let any two adults who want one get one.

Okay to be fair there is one exception to this, and that's incest. But the government has a genuine interest in not letting family members marry and have kids, and that's screwed up genetics.



Haloman800 said:


> Oh yes they are.


Well come back to me when one of those lawsuits goes through.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 9, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> By forcing Church officials to contradict their beliefs and wed homosexual couples, incestual couples, polygamous couples, etc.
> 
> Making factually incorrect claims doesn't hurt your position?
> 
> ...



In the scenario I spoke of they would not be forced to contradict any beliefs they want to cook up. They would however not be able to perform legally binding marriages if they could not fall into line with the state's (as in state at large, not individual state in the union) policy on the matter. I understand various churches pull double duty as polling stations at various points in time -- if they are not willing to let inspectors in then they can not perform that task, no real difference here and there is nothing stopping them from holding a mock poll either.

It is not ideal but you appeared to attempt to conflate alternative but well accepted forms of sexuality with those that are not and indeed are widely illegal in most what might be dubbed progressive countries/places in the world. That is not an especially good place to start.

and where those countries are seen condoning slavery they tend to be penalised, I am not sure where this is going though.

Only 4 times, though to be fair I have met hundreds of people and only killed about 3. I do find it somewhat amusing that you would bring a letter of the law argument where before you are attempting to use higher morality at other points. Considered a career as a lawyer?


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 9, 2015)

kuwanger said:


> One, there is no discussion about forcing churches to marriage homosexuals, polygamists, etc.  There has been repeated discussions about commercial enterprises (or charitable ones) which have tried to use religion as a basis to deny people service.  To them I say the obvious, "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's".  This holds true for marriage licenses (as they are State issued), paying taxes (again, the face of "Caesar" (aka Washington, et al) is on them), etc.
> 
> Two, slavery can't logically be legal because it inherently says the absurd.  One can enter into slavery because to be a slave of another is to forfeit all rights, privileges, etc and hence no bargain can be reached that cannot be usurped by the new owner of the one.  Meanwhile, slavery under prison terms are (at least) hypothetically limited in duration and are a form of restitution for a crime against society/people.  Of course it ends up not being done correctly because of ridiculous prison terms and ridiculous wages (that are applied to restitution).  In the end, prison ends up behaving like indentured servitude where the corruption of it turns it into a system that desires recidivism to continue the enslavement.
> 
> ...


Beat me to it.

This 100%

Also @Haloman800  using conservative sources means they want you to think that the persecution is happening, it makes faux news money


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 9, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> In the scenario I spoke of they would not be forced to contradict any beliefs they want to cook up. They would however not be able to perform legally binding marriages


I've stated repeatedly that the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, as it is a religious institution which was first recorded over 6,000 years ago in the Torah.


> It is not ideal but you appeared to attempt to conflate alternative but well accepted forms of sexuality with those that are not and indeed are widely illegal in most what might be dubbed progressive countries/places in the world. That is not an especially good place to start.


You absolutely cannot support "consenting adults" (homosexuals) yet be opposed to "consenting adults" (siblings, polygamy) without being a hypocrite.


> and where those countries are seen condoning slavery they tend to be penalised, I am not sure where this is going though.


Nope, no one seems to care, even less are doing anything about it. Probably because the ones practicing it aren't white.


> Only 4 times, though to be fair I have met hundreds of people and only killed about 3


1. Bankruptcy isn't immoral 2. If you are opposed to it, blame the government, who created the laws, not Trump, who's only utilizing them.


----------



## RevPokemon (Oct 9, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> I've stated repeatedly that the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, as it is a religious institution which was first recorded over 6,000 years ago in the Torah.
> 
> You absolutely cannot support "consenting adults" (homosexuals) yet be opposed to "consenting adults" (siblings, polygamy) without being a hypocrite.
> 
> ...


1. Bankruptcy can me immoral if it is done for evil reasons. 2. You can blame both since they both are bad


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 9, 2015)

Deboog said:


> I would be appalled to hear that a church was forced to marry a homosexual couple. You're absolutely right. That would go against our constitution.
> I don't think the government allowing gays to marry infringes on people's religious freedom's though. I mean, you can say that official government marriages are bad and wrong, and I can't say that you're wrong.


Great, then you would also support the consistent application of separation of Church & state.



> I just hope you realize that if you lose marriage licensees you also lose joint tax filing, equal share of responsibility's for a child's guardians, easy transfer of wealth if someone dies without a will, etc. So if you really think that we need to replace all that stuff with laws that don't rely on tracking marriages, fine. Otherwise, we need marriage licenses. And if we have marriage licenses then they can't be linked to religious beliefs (separation of church and state) and so we have to let any two adults who want one get one.


This is an argument from pragmatism, which is akin to saying "Well, picking cotton will be much more difficult without slaves!", I don't care, slavery is immoral, and needs to be abolished. Government hijacking marriage and forcing individuals to go against their moral and religious beliefs is immoral, and needs to be abolished.


> Okay to be fair there is one exception to this, and that's incest. But the government has a genuine interest in not letting family members marry and have kids, and that's screwed up genetics.


Non-related couples can have kids with screwed up genetics, so that's not an argument against incest. If your only concern is the likelihood of disease, you would be 100% against homosexuality, since homosexual men are many times more likely to get and spread HIV/AIDs, and despite being 2% of the US population, they account for over 2/3rds of all new HIV/AIDs cases in America each year. 



> Well come back to me when one of those lawsuits goes through.


They have gone through, read the articles. Several church faculty were arrested and/or fined.

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



RevPokemon said:


> 1. Bankruptcy can me immoral if it is done for evil reasons. 2. You can blame both since they both are bad


Prove that when Trump did it, it was for evil/immoral reasons. Otherwise your assertions are baseless.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 9, 2015)

Humans pairing off in various formal and informal manners has be documented longer though, as has pairing in various forms in lesser animals so it could probably go back even further than that as some kind of biological thing. As a lot of religion arose out of and became legal traditions in various forms (at least until that was deemed a less than stellar idea in relatively recent history, give or take certain key events prior to that). Likewise I doubt the current religious definition of marriage would conform of that of the Torah, and there are certainly religious traditions in things like Islam that very much differ, so if the concept can change then "it is a religious thing, for religious people, doing religion" does rather sit on shaky ground. Equally even if it was a religious invention then there are plenty of ideas borrowed from, or at least first codified by, religions throughout history, using the same word could pose a grammatical problem (those meanings overload is hardly a new issue) at times but it is hardly an insurmountable issue.

Siblings and various degrees of relations can not consent to have sex any more than under age but "willing" people can. Polygamy I have no problems with (if 3 or more people want to be miserable...), it might take some legal wrangling to work out taxes, rights and such if you are going to head down that path, but at its core I have no problem with more than two capable types drawing up some kind of commitment contract.

I must confess I am not quite up to date on my current anti slavery practices, actors and status of things. I would not go so far as to say people do not care; you would be hard pressed to find a sizeable population say it is a good thing, oppose ending it/rescuing those subject to it and/or penalising those that might engage in it, whatever form it might take.

I have no problem with the concept of bankruptcy either, as was mentioned it is a rather preferable system to the alternatives. There may be even better ones but that is a different discussion. People abusing the system designed to protect people to instead pick existing companies clean, dodge having to pay debts, both competition and other such things by dint of some quirk are things I have issues with. The letter of the law is fine but holding yourself to a slightly higher standard, especially if you are running for a big office like this, does seem to be both a good thing and the accepted way.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 9, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> Humans pairing off in various formal and informal manners has be documented longer though


Sure, where did I mention "Humans pairing is a religious thing"? You're straw-manning me. I stated that marriage is a religious institution that's been documented over 6,000 years ago. You also don't need marriage to have "human pairing".

We're off topic, so I'm not going to pursue this further.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 9, 2015)

Haloman800 said:


> I've stated repeatedly that the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, as it is a religious institution which was first recorded over 6,000 years ago in the Torah.


Marriage is not an exclusively religious institution. Not by a longshot.
In addition, arguing that the government should get out of the business of marriage means you want religiously married heterosexual couples to lose all of the governmental benefits of marriage they have now (e.g. survivor benefits, visitation rights, etc.).

Edit: Also, the Torah is not 6,000 years old.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Oct 10, 2015)

The week is coming to a close, as is this thread. We got some good debating in with strong opinions from both sides, can't wait to see what next weeks will be like  I have decided that next week's topic _will _be gun control as planned, so if you would like to prepare arguments ahead of time be my guest


----------

