Vote for President

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Vote for President

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 150 52.1%

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 138 47.9%
  • Total voters
    288
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pooh & Annie said:
It's just getting started. Wait til Trump folks itching for a fight confront these violent anti-Trumpers. Things will probably get much worse. And do you think you-know-who will try to defuse the situation or take any responsibility?
Click to expand...

I don't see Bernie or Hillary attempting to take responsibility either. Nobody's calling them out though. Hmm...
Members don't see this ad.
 
Doctor4Life1769 said:
I don't see Bernie or Hillary attempting to take responsibility either. Nobody's calling them out though. Hmm...
Click to expand...
I guess it's not human nature to take responsibility for things an opponent who you vehemently disagree with says. That seems pretty obvious. To everyone who's not brainwashed.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Pooh & Annie said:
I guess it's not human nature to take responsibility for things an opponent who you vehemently disagree with says. That seems pretty obvious. To everyone who's not brainwashed.

Click to expand...


Ok, so if you disagree with someone, it's apparently okay to encourage violence. Got it, thanks for the heads up.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Doctor4Life1769 said:
Ok, so if you disagree with someone, it's apparently okay to encourage violence. Got it, thanks for the heads up.
Click to expand...

I found lots of videos/quotes with both Sanders and Clinton condemning the violent protestors. I haven't found any encouraging violence.

I'll give you a half-truth (I think that's generous) because Sanders has said he's ok with non-disruptive protests:
(From May 7th) - "I am not comfortable with people disrupting other people’s meetings. The right to protest is absolutely right. Not my style to see people disrupting other people’s meetings. I’ve had meetings disrupted. I don’t like it."

But please (because my Google search didn't yield it), educate me where either one have encouraged violence.
I couldn't find anything like saying knock the crap out of him and then offer to pay the legal fees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yeah, trump has a clear understanding of the nature of our government. Not!
 
No offense, but I find everything you have eloquently written incredibly short-sighted. Hanging your hat and voting on a single issue (if that is what you are doing) is the last thing you should be doing.

I could care less about guns. I support all reasonable gun control legislation. Probably most democrats do. I doubt the Second Amendment is going to be nullified any time soon. For every victory that the gun control zealots obtain, I think the bazooka zealots probably get one too. I have absolutely no quarrel with owning firearms and you don't have to be a Republican to support the Second Amendment.

Trump is an unmitigated disaster. If he is elected he will be the most horrific president this country has ever seen by far.

I am no Hillary fan by any stretch of the means but sadly she is the lesser of 2 evils.

You can probably guess my political affiliation although if the Republicans could somehow usurp Trump at the convention and produce a viable candidate (not likely) I wouldn't hesitate to jump ship.

pgg said:
You're a sensible person, but you're falling into the trap most sensible people who vote Democrat fall into concerning gun control. It's probably not that important to you personally, so you don't follow it closely, and so you miss what's really happening, what the long term trend is.


There has always been a faction in US politics that favors more gun control. It got serious and gained significant traction in the post Civil War south, and there's been an incremental chipping away at the 2nd Amendment ever since. I've written about this on SDN many times before, so I won't rehash it all. The short version:

We've endured a nearly continuous trajectory of more and more restriction, ultimately aimed at a complete ban of privately owned firearms, born mostly from racism and classism. Start with the laws aimed at disarming and keeping newly-freed black slaves down in the south in the 1860s. Some other notable milestones of "reasonable commonsense" gun control would include the 1934 National Firearms Act (which heavily taxed many guns so only rich people could own them), the 1968 Gun Control Act, the 1986 Hughes Amendment to FOPA, the 1994 "federal" assault weapon ban, and everything the state of California does between Monday and Friday (inclusive) every single week the state legislature is in session.

You're a sensible person, and you probably genuinely believe that none of these steps were aimed at banning private ownership of firearms. These people aren't stupid. They know an outright ban can't happen overnight. So they chip away bit by bit, pushing as much as they can get away with. Sometimes they overestimate how much they can get, and they fail (e.g. post Sandy Hook efforts) but they just try again. Sometimes they bite off the right amount, and we get magazine capacity bans, the federal AWB, etc.

But please recognize - the ultimate goal really is registration, a ban of new manufacture/purchase, and finally confiscation.


I have been generally sickened by the antics of the Republican party over the last decade or two. That's not to say I love the Democrats, with their own pandering faux-championing of the poor and their own silly misguided (but mostly well-intentioned) policies.


But their incremental, insidious efforts to push more and more gun control - especially the cynically opportunistic attempts like we witnessed after Sandy Hook - are absolute dealbreakers for many of us. Hardly a day goes by when somewhere in this country a Democrat tries to turn ME into a felon with a new law. Not drug dealers, murderers, burglars, rapists ... me.

TWO WEEKS AGO California's Senate passed a law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic rifles.



A competition rifle I've owned for years is illegal under this new law. It's the last thing anyone would ever use to commit a crime. It cost about $1500. It has about 8 pounds of lead weights added to it for balance and inertia. It's used in a class of competition that has been sanctioned by the Civilian Marksmanship Program for over a century. And California is making it illegal.

The truth is that the Democratic Party really is making concerted efforts to ban guns.


Every once in a while one of them lets slip the real goal.







Australia has chosen the register, ban, and confiscate path of gun control, and both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have praised it:






When Democrats comes right out and claim no desire or intent to pursue gun control, we don't believe them, since they've been lying about it for decades. We need look no further than the current president, who repeatedly denied any plans to support new gun control legislation, only to make a major push for it about a month after he was safely re-elected. We need look no further than the current (presumed) presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. We need look no further than the two California Senators, Feinstein and Boxer, who've been "serving" in the Senate since the early 90s.


You want to stop Trump? You want the positive pieces of the Democratic platform to proceed? Start with an honest assessment of what's really happening in your party concerning gun control. The Democrat party desires and works toward incremental, progressive gun control with the ultimate goal of a complete ban.

This subject alone is responsible for a huge number of Republican votes, including mine.

Your party really is working to ban private firearm ownership in the United States. Don't agree with that? Don't like it? Don't want to keep losing votes because of it? Good. The first step to changing it, is to acknowledge that it's happening.
Click to expand...
 
Arch Guillotti said:
No offense, but I find everything you have eloquently written incredibly short-sighted. Hanging your hat and voting on a single issue (if that is what you are doing) is the last thing you should be doing.

I could care less about guns. I support all reasonable gun control legislation. Probably most democrats do. I doubt the Second Amendment is going to be nullified any time soon. For every victory that the gun control zealots obtain, I think the bazooka zealots probably get one too. I have absolutely no quarrel with owning firearms and you don't have to be a Republican to support the Second Amendment.

Trump is an unmitigated disaster. If he is elected he will be the most horrific president this country has ever seen by far.

I am no Hillary fan by any stretch of the means but sadly she is the lesser of 2 evils.

You can probably guess my political affiliation although if the Republicans could somehow usurp Trump at the convention and produce a viable candidate (not likely) I wouldn't hesitate to jump ship.
Click to expand...

I think Trump is an awful person and would be a terrible president. I think Clinton is an awful person and would be a poor president ... who would appoint terrible judges. I think I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson.

I think Clinton is going to be president, and hyperbole aside, the Republic will survive her. But I think we'd survive Trump too. Neither one of them is going to get anything done with this Congress.


No offense taken.


I get a little riled up when politicians (always Democrat) try to turn me into a felon with new laws, for no reason except vote pandering, fearmongering, and hypocrisy.

I shot a match this afternoon (click the images for the fullsize pictures):

Targets look big close up:


Not so much from 1000 yards away:


This was a practice/warmup for the Interservice rifle championships at Quantico in a couple weeks. I put a lot of time and effort into this. I've had a good enough competitive year to have the honor of an invitation to shoot as part of the Navy team. I enjoy it immensely for its simple recreation, discipline, camaraderie, and the homage it pays to a very unique aspect of US history - the 2nd Amendment, an armed populace, a people who are not subjects of the crown, who are "allowed" to be dangerous.

It pisses me off when I'm vilified for being a gun owner, or when gun ownership is blithely dismissed as an unimportant hobby. Both things the Democrat party does at every turn ... sarcastically questioning the "need" to own a semi-automatic rifle while giving condescending lip service to preserving the rights of hunters and target shooters.

Whether Democrats like to admit it or not, they lose votes - lots of them - to people like me who are tired of being vilified, patronized, and lied to. Mere possession of the rifle I shot today would get me convicted of a felony and sent to prison in California, so when I lived in California (on Navy orders mind you) I had to store it in Arizona.

I'd probably hold my nose and vote for Clinton if her party would quit pushing gun control. Trump is awful.
 
SaltyDog said:
Are you shooting at 1K yards w/ something other than a bolt action?
Click to expand...
Sure.

My AR10 in .308 is illegal by feature (semi-auto detachable magazine) and manufacturer (Armalite) in CA. The suppressor is illegal there too. 168 grain bullets are kind of iffy - they tend to go transonic a couple hundred yards short and then all bets are off. But 175s do fine.

Even my match service rifle (a 20" AR15) will get there too, using the right ammunition. The same 80 gr VLDs I use at 600 yards in CMP/NRA highpower competition will get there, although the front sight post has to get screwed down 4 revolutions (20 minutes) and the rear sight needs 13 minutes above the 100y zero. Wind plays hell with it but the bullets don't arrive sideways.

The only part of my 338 LM bolt gun that's CA-illegal is the suppressor. I could shoot it in CA with a bare muzzle, or a brake. The brake is really obnoxious though.

Those are the only 3 I really shoot at 1000 y.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
This election run on both sides is a total mess. Vesuvius baby.

Trump has gotten to become a major liability. Hillary is a total liability.

Thus, I'll be voting for Gary Johnson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
FFP said:
Wow, somebody we could actually be proud of?
Click to expand...

I dunno if I'd be proud of him but he seems like an ordinary dude who wants minimal gov't intervention and to allow people to have their social freedom. I don't care if he was CEO of some weed company. Hell, I could care less if he smoked it while in office. He's a weirdo, but I'm friends with plenty of zany weirdos anyways.
 
This is what happens when you put liberals in charge of the facts:

SvyzhC.jpg
 
It appears that Mr. Trump has fallen behind quite a bit in the polls. Double digits is kind of hard to overcome.
 
deepstate2016 said:
It appears that Mr. Trump has fallen behind quite a bit in the polls. Double digits is kind of hard to overcome.
Click to expand...

Double digit leads can be overcome except in this case, Trump has his gun constantly pointed at his own feet.
 
Machinery said:
Double digit leads can be overcome except in this case, Trump has his gun constantly pointed at his own feet.
Click to expand...
That clown has been shooting at his feet for the last 6 months and so far as I can tell, the only thing it's done is levitate him over his opponents, Yosemite Sam style.

I bet Hillary wins, by a lot, but I wouldn't bet anything I wouldn't shrug at losing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Psai said:
Except that it's June and the vote is in November?
Click to expand...

And that the polls overweighted democrats in the voting, making the results basically meaningless.

The MSM know that Trump is leading among independents and in battleground states, and they are doing what they think is necessary to slow Trump's momentum.
 
chfo said:
And that the polls overweighted democrats in the voting, making the results basically meaningless.

The MSM know that Trump is leading among independents and in battleground states, and they are doing what they think is necessary to slow Trump's momentum.
Click to expand...


Tell me is EVERYONE in your world part of a conspiracy?
 
pgg said:
That clown has been shooting at his feet for the last 6 months and so far as I can tell, the only thing it's done is levitate him over his opponents, Yosemite Sam style.

I bet Hillary wins, by a lot, but I wouldn't bet anything I wouldn't shrug at losing.
Click to expand...
It has won him his base about 40 to 50 percent o f the GOP while chasing off everyone else.
 
chfo said:
And that the polls overweighted democrats in the voting, making the results basically meaningless.

The MSM know that Trump is leading among independents and in battleground states, and they are doing what they think is necessary to slow Trump's momentum.
Click to expand...



Yes that liberal rag the WSJ has got a 5 point lead.
 
pgg said:
I think Trump is an awful person and would be a terrible president. I think Clinton is an awful person and would be a poor president ... who would appoint terrible judges. I think I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson.

I think Clinton is going to be president, and hyperbole aside, the Republic will survive her. But I think we'd survive Trump too. Neither one of them is going to get anything done with this Congress.


No offense taken.


I get a little riled up when politicians (always Democrat) try to turn me into a felon with new laws, for no reason except vote pandering, fearmongering, and hypocrisy.

I shot a match this afternoon (click the images for the fullsize pictures):

Targets look big close up:


Not so much from 1000 yards away:


This was a practice/warmup for the Interservice rifle championships at Quantico in a couple weeks. I put a lot of time and effort into this. I've had a good enough competitive year to have the honor of an invitation to shoot as part of the Navy team. I enjoy it immensely for its simple recreation, discipline, camaraderie, and the homage it pays to a very unique aspect of US history - the 2nd Amendment, an armed populace, a people who are not subjects of the crown, who are "allowed" to be dangerous.

It pisses me off when I'm vilified for being a gun owner, or when gun ownership is blithely dismissed as an unimportant hobby. Both things the Democrat party does at every turn ... sarcastically questioning the "need" to own a semi-automatic rifle while giving condescending lip service to preserving the rights of hunters and target shooters.

Whether Democrats like to admit it or not, they lose votes - lots of them - to people like me who are tired of being vilified, patronized, and lied to. Mere possession of the rifle I shot today would get me convicted of a felony and sent to prison in California, so when I lived in California (on Navy orders mind you) I had to store it in Arizona.

I'd probably hold my nose and vote for Clinton if her party would quit pushing gun control. Trump is awful.
Click to expand...

I agree with the bold. But, I disagree in that I think Trump would be excellent.
 
deepstate2016 said:
Tell me is EVERYONE in your world part of a conspiracy?
Click to expand...
I'm torn. I would love to be so sure of everything that I believe that I can interpret every disagreeable fact as part of a conspiracy. On the other hand, it would make me look ignorant, superstitious, and childish. Plus I'd be vehemently and obviously wrong a lot which should be embarrassing. So actually I guess it would suck.
 
Gotta love goofy Elizabeth Warren, aka Pocahontas:

 
Heartless Hillary accidentally reads "SIGH" on teleprompter:

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
chfo said:
This is what happens when you put liberals in charge of the facts:

SvyzhC.jpg
Click to expand...
when people cannot read. We are not the highest taxed nation in the world, many countries pay 50 to 60% of wages in taxes. If Mr. Trump had added the term corporate he may have been right, but he did not so he is factually absolutely incorrect.
 
deepstate2016 said:
when people cannot read. We are not the highest taxed nation in the world, many countries pay 50 to 60% of wages in taxes. If Mr. Trump had added the term corporate he may have been right, but he did not so he is factually absolutely incorrect.
Click to expand...

The whole point is that Politifact shouldn't say "false", they should say true, or at least mostly true in the context that Trump was speaking.

This is what happens when you have "fact checkers" who are partisan.
 
chfo said:
The whole point is that Politifact shouldn't say "false", they should say true, or at least mostly true in the context that Trump was speaking.

This is what happens when you have "fact checkers" who are partisan.
Click to expand...


No the statement is false if you are not going to take it as face value then you would also acknowledge that multiple tax breaks drop the effective tax rate to less than most of the world. So which is it do you wish to take him at his word or do you wish to put it some sort of context that meets your personal prejudice while ignoring other facts not in the statement.
 
This is the problem with wanting your cake and eating it too.
 
No intent has not been proven, do you read ANYTHING you post?
 
deepstate2016 said:
No intent has not been proven, do you read ANYTHING you post?
Click to expand...

Wrong on that too:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...laws-doomed-hedge-fund-gambled-on-greece.html

The unnamed spy reported that in secret meetings with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Schauble had searched for a politically acceptable way to bail out the Greek debt in order to avoid collapsing the economies of Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland.

The second memo was classified and blacked out by State Department censors when Clinton’s emails were released. No doubt, it was informative.

In June, Clinton’s deputy, Jake Sullivan emailed her “a depressing snapshot” of reports that Greek banks were failing and that Merkel was against a Greek bailout. The next day, he reported “re: Greece” that Ambassador Dan Smith “just spoke to the Central Bank Governor and assessed that the economic situation was “ok for now” provided that “small depositors put money back into the banks.”

A few days later, Clinton asked Sullivan for a confidential state department report, “Solidarity Bonds Greece Revised.” He sent it to her adding, “If you like, send it on [to] WJC," presumably a reference to William Jefferson Clinton.

Clinton ordered an aide, “Pls print two copies” of the Greek bond report. The report was blacked out as a “protected” document when the emails were made public.
Click to expand...
 
pgg said:
Do you understand that it's possibly to be criminally negligent without intending to screw something up?
Click to expand...





Of course one can but the charges are conspiracy. To prove conspiracy one must prove intent. General Petreus purposely gave classified information to his mistress and could have been charged with conspiracy, but intent was not proven.
 
deepstate2016 said:
Well if lying to reporters were a crime then yes it would be prosocutable. But it is not so thanks for another irrelevant clip devoid of thought or context.
Click to expand...
Lying to the American people.
 
Well, no president or politician EVER lied to the American public, shocked I am shocked! Your screen name should be Pollyanna
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

nimbus
Cedars Union Vote
Replies
39
Views
3K
anbuitachi
A
P
Voting rights in your dept.
Replies
22
Views
3K
Bertelman
Bertelman
BLADEMDA
President Bernie Sanders
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
919
Views
44K
Consigliere
Consigliere
TeslaCoil
Jerome Adams Fired on Day One of Biden Presidency
Replies
12
Views
3K
GassYous
GassYous
O
Bernie Sanders announces he is running for President
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
333
Views
15K
XWing5000
XWing5000
Top