|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Apr 7, 2016 7:28:25 GMT
Nobody taking muh guns. Dont tread on me and my colt m 1911 45 caliber!
|
|
|
|
Post by dunksby on Apr 7, 2016 15:02:45 GMT
So I guess Trump did lose some votes?
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2016 19:22:03 GMT
So I guess Trump did lose some votes? I'll break it down for you (again) He was routinely, as I said before, behind in Wisconsin by around 5-10% he lost by 13. (although there are a couple statistical outliers there of course) Which isn't exactly a good thing, but he's got a real strong history of underperforming his polling numbers
But we'll go again at the whole women thing via exit polls. In Wisconsin he got 35 of women Just shy of his TN 38% of women In South Carolina he got 29% In Michigan he got 29% In Mississippi he finished with 37% If anything him losing men by that number is alarming but still not really indicative of anything until we see what happens in a couple weeks.
|
|
|
Tom Is Dead
•
Irish Lass Kicker
Posts: 13,008
Likes: 8,196
:: I'll never love again
My World
Is
Ending
|
Post by Tom Is Dead on Apr 8, 2016 0:13:55 GMT
hehe maybe in the future guns will have wifi or constant internet access or whatever and a print on the trigger. So every time you fired you'd know who did it. Saw a gun on the news that when holstered looks like a smartphone. Supposedly for concealed-carry at work and shit but without freaking people out over you having a gun For me personally, if you need to always have a gun on you to feel safe, you either live in a shithole, are a lunatic or both
|
|
|
|
Post by bladefd on Apr 8, 2016 19:50:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Apr 8, 2016 20:07:37 GMT
There's a lot you can attack clinton on easily. Morally corrupt, financially corrupt, her history of covering for her husbands sexual assault, her inconsistency in beliefs, and so on. Attacking her qualifications is silly. Shes been wife to the president, senator, and secretary of state. She has greater depth of knowledge of the position than anyone who hasnt had it most likely. Its even worse coming from a guy who couldnt keep a job before getting elected.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2016 22:59:08 GMT
I don't know if I'd say being married to someone is a qualification. I agree she's qualified but her marriage has nothing to do with it. I'd attack her record as secretary of state personally, if I was attacking her qualifications. Libya, the weird Wikileaks shit she did on American officials. I know he can't because his foreign policy game is weak, and government spying has never really been something he's concerned with, but there is shit to attack her on.
Plus overall her time as secretary of state was pretty good in comparison to Sanders' general "rightness" on the issues he voted on in Congress but he never really passed anything landmark that he drafted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scottie4Hottie on Apr 9, 2016 4:12:08 GMT
I don't know if I'd say being married to someone is a qualification. I agree she's qualified but her marriage has nothing to do with it. I'd attack her record as secretary of state personally, if I was attacking her qualifications. Libya, the weird Wikileaks shit she did on American officials. I know he can't because his foreign policy game is weak, and government spying has never really been something he's concerned with, but their is shit to attack her on. Plus overall her time as secretary of state was pretty good in comparison to Sanders' general "rightness" on the issues he voted on in Congress but he never really passed anything landmark that he drafted. Not only that you can track her record on her support with promoting NAFTA and TPP. The issue is she's the chosen one and legitimate journalism will never question her flip flopping.
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Apr 9, 2016 4:28:32 GMT
I don't know if I'd say being married to someone is a qualification. I agree she's qualified but her marriage has nothing to do with it. I'd attack her record as secretary of state personally, if I was attacking her qualifications. Libya, the weird Wikileaks shit she did on American officials. I know he can't because his foreign policy game is weak, and government spying has never really been something he's concerned with, but their is shit to attack her on. Plus overall her time as secretary of state was pretty good in comparison to Sanders' general "rightness" on the issues he voted on in Congress but he never really passed anything landmark that he drafted. For president I think being the wife of a president definitely is huge and gives you a view into the job that maybe even the secretary of state didnt have. Especially in Hillary's case where she was very involved in a lot of things. I dont think Id say the same thing about michelle obama or the bush's wives. Also, shes was a great secretary of state, while, as you said, sanders never got anything done in congress and he was hated by both parties.
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Apr 9, 2016 4:29:23 GMT
I don't know if I'd say being married to someone is a qualification. I agree she's qualified but her marriage has nothing to do with it. I'd attack her record as secretary of state personally, if I was attacking her qualifications. Libya, the weird Wikileaks shit she did on American officials. I know he can't because his foreign policy game is weak, and government spying has never really been something he's concerned with, but their is shit to attack her on. Plus overall her time as secretary of state was pretty good in comparison to Sanders' general "rightness" on the issues he voted on in Congress but he never really passed anything landmark that he drafted. Not only that you can track her record on her support with promoting NAFTA and TPP. The issue is she's the chosen one and legitimate journalism will never question her flip flopping. It is factual that NAFTA was a benefit to the US and the TPP will be. Free trade is inarguably good and if you are against it you are misinformed, plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scottie4Hottie on Apr 9, 2016 4:39:28 GMT
Not only that you can track her record on her support with promoting NAFTA and TPP. The issue is she's the chosen one and legitimate journalism will never question her flip flopping. It is factual that NAFTA was a benefit to the US and the TPP will be. Free trade is inarguably good and if you are against it you are misinformed, plain and simple. I have not stated that I'm against it. Your just putting words in my mouth son. I am just stating a fact. She flip flops, she has previously denied support for both the deals, yet she is shown supporting it and lobbing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Apr 9, 2016 4:46:47 GMT
It is factual that NAFTA was a benefit to the US and the TPP will be. Free trade is inarguably good and if you are against it you are misinformed, plain and simple. I have not stated that I'm against it. Your just putting words in my mouth son. I am just stating a fact. She flip flops, she has previously denied support for both the deals, yet she is shown supporting it and lobbing it. I dont think she ever denied she once supported it and it shouldnt be the issue that it is in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scottie4Hottie on Apr 9, 2016 4:49:39 GMT
I have not stated that I'm against it. Your just putting words in my mouth son. I am just stating a fact. She flip flops, she has previously denied support for both the deals, yet she is shown supporting it and lobbing it. I dont think she ever denied she once supported it and it shouldnt be the issue that it is in the first place. In the overall picture you are correct I might be over reaching there lol.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 14:30:23 GMT
I don't know if I'd say being married to someone is a qualification. I agree she's qualified but her marriage has nothing to do with it. I'd attack her record as secretary of state personally, if I was attacking her qualifications. Libya, the weird Wikileaks shit she did on American officials. I know he can't because his foreign policy game is weak, and government spying has never really been something he's concerned with, but their is shit to attack her on. Plus overall her time as secretary of state was pretty good in comparison to Sanders' general "rightness" on the issues he voted on in Congress but he never really passed anything landmark that he drafted. For president I think being the wife of a president definitely is huge and gives you a view into the job that maybe even the secretary of state didnt have. Especially in Hillary's case where she was very involved in a lot of things. I dont think Id say the same thing about michelle obama or the bush's wives. Also, shes was a great secretary of state, while, as you said, sanders never got anything done in congress and he was hated by both parties. Eh. AFAIK wasn't her only thing CHIP? I know she was involved more than most, but I still wouldn't say that's a qualification.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 14:31:49 GMT
She definitely flip flopped on NAFTA. She wanted to "wait and see" with the TPP.
Also NAFTA was bad, and still is bad.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 14:44:27 GMT
Lmao mags acting like you can't be for free trade and against Nafta at the same time
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Apr 9, 2016 16:25:45 GMT
Lmao mags acting like you can't be for free trade and against Nafta at the same time No, it really doesnt make much sense. NAFTA, the TPP, etc. are how free trade deals work. Its like saying Im for gay marriage and then criticizing every state that legalized it.
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Apr 9, 2016 16:28:23 GMT
She definitely flip flopped on NAFTA. She wanted to "wait and see" with the TPP. Also NAFTA was bad, and still is bad. Once again, if you increase barriers to trade you will just raise the prices of everyday goods which will be disproportionately destructive to the poor.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 16:31:51 GMT
She definitely flip flopped on NAFTA. She wanted to "wait and see" with the TPP. Also NAFTA was bad, and still is bad. Once again, if you increase barriers to trade you will just raise the prices of everyday goods which will be disproportionately destructive to the poor. Not quite as destructive as the reallocation of jobs to other countries.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 16:39:08 GMT
Lmao mags acting like you can't be for free trade and against Nafta at the same time No, it really doesnt make much sense. NAFTA, the TPP, etc. are how free trade deals work. Its like saying Im for gay marriage and then criticizing every state that legalized it. i think even you understand how stupid of an analogy it is to compare the implementation of a social policy to an economic one.
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Apr 9, 2016 16:41:15 GMT
Once again, if you increase barriers to trade you will just raise the prices of everyday goods which will be disproportionately destructive to the poor. Not quite as destructive as the reallocation of jobs to other countries. No, its far more destructive actually, because people losing their jobs over trade deals is a very small portion and those trade deals have money set aside for compensation (via training or other means) when it happens. If it was more destructive, then you wouldnt be making more money off the lower prices and trade deals wouldnt make sense, would they? Beyond all that, the reality is that if you are overpaid for your job, relocations and complete losses are inevitable and Americans shouldnt be fighting to keep low skill jobs that are in decline. Its like fighting to keep farming the main occupation when farming equipment came to replace farmers. Its truly asinine and inefficient.
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Apr 9, 2016 16:43:05 GMT
No, it really doesnt make much sense. NAFTA, the TPP, etc. are how free trade deals work. Its like saying Im for gay marriage and then criticizing every state that legalized it. i think even you understand how stupid of an analogy it is to compare the implementation of a social policy to an economic one. Im comparing the opposition to them, not the policy, and Im completely right. If you are against every free trade deal, how are your for free trade? In that case Ill just say Im pro gun control and continue hating every proposed gun law.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 16:46:37 GMT
i think even you understand how stupid of an analogy it is to compare the implementation of a social policy to an economic one. Im comparing the opposition to them, not the policy, and Im completely right. If you are against every free trade deal, how are your for free trade? In that case Ill just say Im pro gun control and continue hating every proposed gun law. oh so now opposing nafta means you're against every free trade deal? you always do this. you take one thing and extrapolate it to fit your argument. and being for gay marriage yet against the legalization of gay marriage in Utah (which doesn't even make sense - bad analogy) is not the same as being for free trade and against nafta. because social and economic policies are different. so the opposition to their implementation is different.
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Apr 9, 2016 16:49:03 GMT
Im comparing the opposition to them, not the policy, and Im completely right. If you are against every free trade deal, how are your for free trade? In that case Ill just say Im pro gun control and continue hating every proposed gun law. oh so now opposing nafta means you're against every free trade deal? you always do this. you take one thing and extrapolate it to fit your argument. and being for gay marriage yet against the legalization of gay marriage in Utah (which doesn't even make sense - bad analogy) is not the same as being for free trade and against nafta. because social and economic policies are different. so the opposition to their implementation is different. Youve said you're against the TPP in the past. If youre against the two largest free trade deals, youre against free trade. And, yeah, thats my whole point. It doesnt even make sense.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 16:51:58 GMT
oh so now opposing nafta means you're against every free trade deal? you always do this. you take one thing and extrapolate it to fit your argument. and being for gay marriage yet against the legalization of gay marriage in Utah (which doesn't even make sense - bad analogy) is not the same as being for free trade and against nafta. because social and economic policies are different. so the opposition to their implementation is different. Youve said you're against the TPP in the past. If youre against the two largest free trade deals, youre against free trade. And, yeah, thats my whole point. It doesnt even make sense. you're legit making stuff up, i've never said anything on here about the tpp
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 16:53:07 GMT
Free trade as a concept isn't black and white. most people's definition of what free trade is is different, so it is fair to be opposed to a free trade act while still supporting the idea of free trade. The idea of gay marriage is black and white you mook
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Apr 9, 2016 16:56:04 GMT
Youve said you're against the TPP in the past. If youre against the two largest free trade deals, youre against free trade. And, yeah, thats my whole point. It doesnt even make sense. you're legit making stuff up, i've never said anything on here about the tpp I asked you about it a year or two ago on ISH.
|
|
|
Deleted
•
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2016 16:58:10 GMT
you're legit making stuff up, i've never said anything on here about the tpp I asked you about it a year or two ago on ISH. but that's besides the point. I don't support the initial restrictions and limitations that started with NAFTA as they've completely shaped the current american economy, and imo, in a negative way
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Apr 9, 2016 16:59:41 GMT
Free trade as a concept isn't black and white. most people's definition of what free trade is is different, so it is fair to be opposed to a free trade act while still supporting the idea of free trade. The idea of gay marriage is black and white you mook Not really true in either case. You could support "civil unions", you could be against all government action related to marriage. Its not any more black and white than free trade, which has a clear and easy definition. Free trade isnt really something you can have different definitions of anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by 寂しいマグナエクス on Apr 9, 2016 17:01:16 GMT
I asked you about it a year or two ago on ISH. but that's besides the point. I don't support the initial restrictions and limitations that started with NAFTA as they've completely shaped the current american economy, and imo, in a negative way I dont think I know what you mean by restrictions. The whole point is to lift restrictions and create an environment to enforce that.
|
|
|