Trump will be president
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2016, 04:27 PM
RE: Trump will be president
Election Day Forecasts:

- No shy Republicans. If there's one adjective that doesn't apply to Trump supporters, "shy" is it.
- Depressed Republican turnout. A candidate that isn't a conservative, a divided Republican party and Trump's lack of ground game are pretty much a perfect storm for Republican voter apathy.
- No white voter surge. As above, Trump's supporters don't sneak worth a damn. If they were out there they'd have shown on some poll or other by now.
- Low youth vote. This is typical for most elections and won't have any impact. Hillary would have benefitted from them but doesn't need them.
- Strong black, hispanic and asian vote highly favouring the Democrats. Ditto for LGBT and any other minorities. All are highly motivated to vote against Trump.
- Did we mention women? Their vote will be skewed blue this election.
- Moderate to strong Democrat turn-out at the polls. Advanced polling is already showing this. Hillary's popularity is poor nationally but nominal within the party. Add that to the threat of a Trump Presidency and you'll be able to get voters to the polls.
- Shy Democrats. Actually Republicans and embarassed to say they'll be voting for Hillary.

Outcome: Hillary wins with +6% +/-2% of the popular vote and 340 +/- 40 electoral college votes. Senate control goes to the Democrats by a thin margin. Gains in the House but not the 30 seats needed for control.

Trump won't concede her victory but that's simply a breach of etiquette that will damage US democracy in the long run but has little meaning in the near future. The law clearly states that she who has the most electoral college votes becomes POTUS so a concession speach is simply a matter of form. Any potential litigation is constrained by the time limitations and is unlikely to be backed by the Republican party.

This is barring any further scandals or Trump opening his gob in a particularly embarassing manner.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
26-10-2016, 04:52 PM
RE: Trump will be president
Notwithstanding any new gropes or gaffs, I recognized Trump as non-presidential material during the first debates. I don't watch enough TV to have formed an opinion of Trump prior to that. Whether or not other candidates are bought and/or sold, I don't think you will find many politicians who aren't in some way owned by someone. As far as Trump not being owned, it doesn't matter. That doesn't outweigh the rest of his personality.
Find all posts by this user
26-10-2016, 08:11 PM
RE: Trump will be president
Another hit against LDH's Rubio Gambit:

https://www.facebook.com/tampabaycom/pos...3996099838

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
26-10-2016, 08:36 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(25-10-2016 10:59 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  You guys are right. Trump has no chance. Why waste your time voting? It won't matter if you stay home that day. It's only one vote right? Just relax at home and watch those results come in. Or play some video games. Its all good, she has it in the bag.

I already voted so come Election Day that's my plan.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
26-10-2016, 08:38 PM
RE: Trump will be president
Evil shall not prevail!

And by evil I mean stupidity.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes AnaBunny's post
26-10-2016, 08:47 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 02:46 PM)Dom Wrote:  What are sanctuary cities?

Like in San Francisco they refuse to prosecute people accused of being illegal. They won't turn people in.

There are some 31 of them across the country.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
26-10-2016, 09:07 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 08:11 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Another hit against LDH's Rubio Gambit:

https://www.facebook.com/tampabaycom/pos...3996099838

Wouldn’t that be something, let’s see what happens. I think the primaries hurt Rubio.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
26-10-2016, 09:16 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 02:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We know that would never work, and long-term change is NEVER accomplished at the end of a gun.

The American Revolution?

The American Civil War?

Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
26-10-2016, 09:18 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2016 09:24 PM by Chas.)
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 02:26 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 02:02 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  My point was, things like bearing arms, free speech, freedom of religion etc are actually in the constitution. You won't find the words abortion or gay marriage. [...]

Ah yes... the good ol' US Constitution.

Refer to District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) 2008. (The plaintiff in Heller unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban.)

Recent US case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold regulations:

Which ban weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property);

Which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, convicted felon. US v Rene, 583 F.3d 8 (2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment);

Which require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment.)

—BTW, retired associate justice of the US Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010, John Paul Stevens says that five words could solve the Second Amendment issue as per:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."

(Although that needs a thread of its own I guess.)

Stevens either did not understand the intent of that amendment, or the language of the times, or was pushing his own agenda. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
26-10-2016, 09:42 PM
RE: Trump will be president
(26-10-2016 09:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-10-2016 02:26 PM)SYZ Wrote:  Ah yes... the good ol' US Constitution.

Refer to District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) 2008. (The plaintiff in Heller unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban.)

Recent US case law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold regulations:

Which ban weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property);

Which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, convicted felon. US v Rene, 583 F.3d 8 (2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment);

Which require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment.)

—BTW, retired associate justice of the US Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010, John Paul Stevens says that five words could solve the Second Amendment issue as per:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."

(Although that needs a thread of its own I guess.)

Please start that thread so your understanding of that Amendment can be improved. Drinking Beverage

Well, he left out that the Heller case overwhelmingly confirmed that the 2nd amendment is an individual right to bear arms, and laid out both the reasons that is so and the reasons why it is within the government's power and responsibility to determine what limits to place on the general, individual right to bear arms.

Justice Stevens was nuts if he thought that's what the founders meant, or that they wouldn't have said so, if that's what they meant. Everyone owned a gun back then, of top military grade (actually, they were usually better than military guns, which were designed to be simpler and more-easily-maintained, for field use by conscripted soldiers), and it's a big part of how we Americans were able to start pushing back the frontier from our coastal colonies, as was still ongoing-in-full when they wrote the 2nd amendment... as was the fact that we had just thrown off a well-trained professional military in our Revolution, thanks in large part to an ability to call up riflemen from across our still-wild colonial inland.

Yet while I happen to think that the "well-regulated militia" part does in fact equate to ownership by citizens of guns for the specific purpose of keeping us well-trained in gun use and to keep tyranny from owning us (be it domestic or foreign), I have to object to the phrase "does not appear in the constitution".

"Machine gun", "bazooka", "Javelin missile", "Stinger missile", "C4/Semtex", and a host of other modern concepts do not appear in the Constitution, either. I have yet to hear one decent argument for why we should allow anyone and everyone in the USA to own/buy/sell Stinger missiles.

So pretty much everyone agrees that a line must be drawn, between a basic hunting rifle and a Stinger missile. The only real question comes in at where that line is drawn, and what levels of licensing we'd need in order to approve Joe Guyonthestreet for the Javelin antitank missile, or whatever in between. For some reason, 2nd Amendment advocates think you're the devil if your opinion of "where do we draw that line" is even one rung further down the ladder than their own.

And yet logically, if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to let us fight our own government, then we'd have to own Stingers and Javelins, wouldn't we, in order to combat the government's helicopters and tanks.

The key is the phrase "well-regulated", which says that yes, America is built upon the armed yeoman, capable of making up a militia at need (in case of tyranny, break glass), and having readily-available guns and gun culture is part of that ability to form such partisan groups should the need ever arise. But we must regulate how that happens so it's not child's play for some wannabe statement-maker to go get a GE M134 Minigun and put 6000 rounds per minute into a stadium crowd.

No sane person thinks there should be no limits on the 2nd amendment, for that reason. The question then is how do we regulate, and to what limit may the government do so... these are questions we are hashing out in the legislature and courts. What bothers me is that the rhetoric of groups like the NRA has made it an extremist, "all-or-nothing" argument in which neither side seems able to be reasonable about it.

Hillary is not coming to "take all our guns". Gun regulation is not taking your guns, any more than it's taking your bazookas. And FFS if you're talking about armed insurrection because you don't like someone who was elected, then you're a goddamned traitor. Knock it off.

Likewise, people who come from American subcultures that are not familiar with gun culture need to stop talking about gun owners like we're mostly weirdos and power-hungry creeps who're likely to snap and hurt someone. It is ridiculous and not only stifles the conversation but it gives vultures like Wayne LaPierre all the ammunition they need (pun intended) to stymie legitimate discussions about whether we should expand or change the nature of our gun regulatory laws.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about all this.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
[+] 10 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: