trump vs hillary

Status
Not open for further replies.
jnos said:
Term Limits? They were ruled unconstitutional (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton). Odd that 2nd Amendment advocates would push term limits.

You know how you get term limits? Don't vote for the bastards more than twice.
Click to expand...

There's term limits on the president, why not all of them? you really think it a good idea to have people in Congress into their 90s? the simple truth is incumbents have such an advantage "just vote them out" doesn't work
 
rick81721 said:
This reminds me of 1980, I was actually a liberal then and remember talking to college friends about how the country was doomed if Reagan won. We couldn't believe it when he actually did it. 4 years later I voted for his re-election!

And for the record, I still think trump loses.
Click to expand...
220px-Oliver_North_mug_shot.jpg
 
rick81721 said:
There's term limits on the president, why not all of them? you really think it a good idea to have people in Congress into their 90s? the simple truth is incumbents have such an advantage "just vote them out" doesn't work
Click to expand...
"Vote them out" totally works, but only if people actually do the voting thing. People only seem to care enough to rant on the Internet. Very few are willing to do the hard work of understanding the candidates' positions and records. It's been said before, but we deserve the candidates we get. If you think your vote doesn't count, then why do the Kochs, Adelsons and Soros of the world spend so much of their money to influence how we vote? Incumbent advantage exists because too many voters go no deeper than name recognition and party affiliation. Term limits takes the power out of the voters hands and could have the undesired effect of pushing out someone who is doing a good job. I'd rather see a limiting of the money factor, both in campaigns and lobbying.
 
SmooveP said:
If you think your vote doesn't count, then why do the Kochs, Adelsons and Soros of the world spend so much of their money to influence how we vote?
Click to expand...

They don't care what we vote, if their candidate gets in they make that money back several times over, so technically bankrolling their guy to get us to vote. And its a tax deduction so if I have a million dollars in income and I have to pay 450k to the government, maybe I'd rather spend it all and give the government nothing since I have billions in the bank. They are 100 years old and you can't take it with you.
 
Supermoto said:
Can you expand on why it is odd for 2A advocates to push term limits?
Click to expand...
Sure. Just a reminder, I'm not against guns and I think the Assault Weapons Ban is completely stupid. I also think a bit of regulation isn't the end of the world.

So the typical argument from the pro-gun ownership side is (condensed for simplicity): The constitution gives us the right to bear arms. The Founding Fathers put that in there for a reason. Increased regulation infringes on the second amendment right. This argument weighs strongly on the intent of the Founding Fathers and usually ignores the fact that we can update the constitution (end slavery, prohibition, cancel prohibition, voting rights for women, etc.). Why do I say it weighs strongly on the intent? Because whenever the pro-gun control side says "how 'bout some more regulations?", the pro gun side says "No! That's not what the second amendment says" (ignoring the first half of the amendment), as opposed to "that would require a new amendment to clarify what the 2nd means and that would require 2/3s of the states to agree, but sure, have at it".

The constitution (the original document and the 17th amendment) make clear that the people should decide their representation. Being for term limits means that you are okay with changing the constitution (and the original intent of the Founders). By that same logic, even if you don't agree with it, you should be okay with attempting to regulate gun ownership through legislation (that the courts can then weigh in on) or through amendment.
 
Blair said:
They don't care what we vote, if their candidate gets in they make that money back several times over, so technically bankrolling their guy to get us to vote. And its a tax deduction so if I have a million dollars in income and I have to pay 450k to the government, maybe I'd rather spend it all and give the government nothing since I have billions in the bank. They are 100 years old and you can't take it with you.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're trying to say here. I guess they don't "care" in the normal human emotion definition of the word, but they're sure as hell spending their money to influence people to vote their guy in, since the pesky voting thing is still the only way to make that happen.
 
SmooveP said:
"Vote them out" totally works, but only if people actually do the voting thing. People only seem to care enough to rant on the Internet. Very few are willing to do the hard work of understanding the candidates' positions and records. It's been said before, but we deserve the candidates we get. If you think your vote doesn't count, then why do the Kochs, Adelsons and Soros of the world spend so much of their money to influence how we vote? Incumbent advantage exists because too many voters go no deeper than name recognition and party affiliation. Term limits takes the power out of the voters hands and could have the undesired effect of pushing out someone who is doing a good job. I'd rather see a limiting of the money factor, both in campaigns and lobbying.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of why the Koch's spend money has less to do with buying a candidate than with letting the candidate know that if they vote the wrong way on an issue, they'll have a heavily funded primary challenger.
 
jnos said:
The constitution (the original document and the 17th amendment) make clear that the people should decide their representation. Being for term limits means that you are okay with changing the constitution (and the original intent of the Founders). By that same logic, even if you don't agree with it, you should be okay with attempting to regulate gun ownership through legislation (that the courts can then weigh in on) or through amendment.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the SC decision on this, I think Thomas dissent was correct. Since the constitution is silent on this issue, the power goes to the state. The constitution is clear on the 2A
 
jnos said:
Sure. Just a reminder, I'm not against guns and I think the Assault Weapons Ban is completely stupid. I also think a bit of regulation isn't the end of the world.

So the typical argument from the pro-gun ownership side is (condensed for simplicity): The constitution gives us the right to bear arms. The Founding Fathers put that in there for a reason. Increased regulation infringes on the second amendment right. This argument weighs strongly on the intent of the Founding Fathers and usually ignores the fact that we can update the constitution (end slavery, prohibition, cancel prohibition, voting rights for women, etc.). Why do I say it weighs strongly on the intent? Because whenever the pro-gun control side says "how 'bout some more regulations?", the pro gun side says "No! That's not what the second amendment says" (ignoring the first half of the amendment), as opposed to "that would require a new amendment to clarify what the 2nd means and that would require 2/3s of the states to agree, but sure, have at it".

The constitution (the original document and the 17th amendment) make clear that the people should decide their representation. Being for term limits means that you are okay with changing the constitution (and the original intent of the Founders). By that same logic, even if you don't agree with it, you should be okay with attempting to regulate gun ownership through legislation (that the courts can then weigh in on) or through amendment.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges argument. The difference is the 2nd amendment applies to everyone and changing it modifies everyone's rights. Who's rights are taken away by imposing term limits? Life-long politicians?
 
SmooveP said:
Not sure what you're trying to say here. I guess they don't "care" in the normal human emotion definition of the word, but they're sure as hell spending their money to influence people to vote their guy in, since the pesky voting thing is still the only way to make that happen.
Click to expand...
I guess my point is it doesn't matter what we vote, the big donors are getting their favors at the expense of any morality and maintaining political careers.
 
Blair said:
whichever candidate will give me a carbon wheelset can have my vote.
Click to expand...

Not sure the tRUMP can afford carbon.

According to the latest mandated Federal Election filings, tRUMP only contributed $33,600 in the first 20 days of October to his campaign.

But keep sending in those $20 contributions...
 
Hah.. email investigation re-opened.. the wiki leaks has people turned against her.. dems getting her out..

Say it with me

President Biden.
 
Watch how fast the FBI moves now. Has to happen in the next few days.. so she steps down, Biden steps in, Obama issues executive action to postpone election for a few months.. Write it down.
 
The FBI just reopened the case to give more immunity to people. They will do more interviews where suspects can acts as attorneys for other suspects and no one will be under oath...word of the day is "I don't recall"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom