|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 6, 2016 9:09:39 GMT -5
Sorry, but I live here and that's total bollocks. You can skew a poll to give any result you want, and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that something like the Express would claim such a thing, but please don't be so credulous as to believe it. I'm only surprised it was the Express and not the Daily Mail, though they'd more likely have claimed it was 95%... We never needed the police to be armed when the I.R.A were active, and they were a more real and immediate threat to most of us than ISIS. Yeah, that is total b*****ks. I can honestly say that in all my years, I don't remember ever having met anyone over here who seriously thinks that arming all police is necessary, let alone a being a sensible idea. Two things to bear in mind though, is that, even if we don't just assume that the survey and those results have been pulled out of the air to create a story (which, given the source, I'd say is likely), is that the survey was conducted mere days after the Paris Bataclan attacks, which will obviously skew people's responses. Secondly, that survey wasn't conducted by some serious research and statistical body -- it was done by ITV's This Morning program, a lightweight, celeb gossip and general news magazine program. It's hardly the News at Ten! You're correct, this poll has no scientific value. It's an online survey on ITV's website. It's like saying "a survey reveals that 65% of the population thinks Bat-boy is real" when the poll is conducted on the Weekly World News website. (Or "survey reveals that Marvel is the best publisher ever" when the poll is conducted in the pages of Marvel Age).
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Nov 6, 2016 9:26:33 GMT -5
When has Hillary said that the average citizen is not allowed to have armed security? I'm pretty sure never. Maybe you actually know she's not being a hypocrite and blah blah blah [snip] Uh, yeah dude, maybe you know the NRA disapproves of her because of what she says. So your rebuttal is essentially, "Oh, look, a butterfly." I expect that when someone posts a video under a remark that it's about what Hillary actually says, that video would include someone quotes from Hillary supporting your characterization. In fact, the video contains ZERO quotes from Hillary. It's just a dramatization of your scenario that is unconnected with Hillary's actual issue position. But it's gotta an actress and production values, so damn the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 9:58:36 GMT -5
The facts are, the NRA does not support Hilary Clinton in spite of your rather silly posturing on it above. It does not believe in her where the second amendment is involved. So go argue your case to its 5 million members.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Nov 6, 2016 10:01:52 GMT -5
This is me. This is my contribution to the politics thread. Sorry. Heh! You don't have to respect an untenable opinion, lolatadatodo. Just the person who holds it. My wife never ceases to remind me when I am wrong, wrong, wrong about something. (Not that I ever am, of course, but still).Your wife sounds like a wonderfully brilliant woman who knows a thing or two.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 6, 2016 10:07:24 GMT -5
Heh! You don't have to respect an untenable opinion, lolatadatodo. Just the person who holds it. My wife never ceases to remind me when I am wrong, wrong, wrong about something. (Not that I ever am, of course, but still).Your wife sounds like a wonderfully brilliant woman who knows a thing or two. Indeed she is!
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Nov 6, 2016 11:10:36 GMT -5
The facts are, the NRA does not support Hilary Clinton in spite of your rather silly posturing on it above. It does not believe in her where the second amendment is involved. So go argue your case to its 5 million members. Unquestionably the NRA doesn't support Clinton, or pretty much any Democrat or anyone else who suggests any sort of limits on gun ownership, reasonable or otherwise. It's also unquestionable that 5 million people is statistically insignificant in a country of 325 million people (roughly 1.5%). The only reason they're able to push their agenda is the massive amounts of money they spend on lobbyists and political contributions.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 12:34:56 GMT -5
It's also unquestionable that 5 million people is statistically insignificant in a country of 325 million people (roughly 1.5%). The only reason they're able to push their agenda is the massive amounts of money they spend on lobbyists and political contributions. In 2012, Obama got 65,915,795 votes. Romney got 60,933,504. A difference of just under 5 million. Whoever wins this election will also win by a margin of maybe 6-8 million and how this is distributed in the electoral college. In that scenario, having a potential bank of 5 million NRA votes in your corner is quite significant indeed.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 6, 2016 13:01:43 GMT -5
Personally, I think I'd rather lose the election.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 6, 2016 13:20:17 GMT -5
It's also unquestionable that 5 million people is statistically insignificant in a country of 325 million people (roughly 1.5%). The only reason they're able to push their agenda is the massive amounts of money they spend on lobbyists and political contributions. In 2012, Obama got 65,915,795 votes. Romney got 60,933,504. A difference of just under 5 million. Whoever wins this election will also win by a margin of maybe 6-8 million and how this is distributed in the electoral college. In that scenario, having a potential bank of 5 million NRA votes in your corner is quite significant indeed. You're correct, but those are not swing votes; the NRA, like, say, the Mormon Church, is already massively Republican no matter what. Many groups and associations show a strong bias toward one party or the other; those votes are already factored in when the Republicans and the Democrats make their campaign plans.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Nov 6, 2016 14:12:55 GMT -5
The facts are, the NRA does not support Hilary Clinton in spite of your rather silly posturing on it above. It does not believe in her where the second amendment is involved. So go argue your case to its 5 million members. This is why we have so much political gridlock. I deliver a cogent, rational response to your baseless innuendo, that I guess you think Hillary has sought to round up everyone's guns. I showed that her campaign positions on guns are (1) close loopholes that allow certain gun sales to avoid background checks (totally outdated loopholes since internet speed has increased so much since background checks started) and (2) bar domestic abusers and the severely mentally ill from accessing guns. How is it silly to go to the actual evidence? Rather than finding evidence that rebuts (e.g., Hillary advocating seizure handguns of law-abiding citizens used for self-defense), you link to a video that just repeats want you said with a glossy sheen. The fact that the NRA opposes her is a non-sequitur. It's not what we are debating. Game playing does not solve problems. "Winning" is sussing out the facts to try to solve problems, not sticking to your position regardless of any information.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 14:16:33 GMT -5
This is why we have so much political gridlock. I deliver a cogent, rational response to your baseless innuendo [snip] Have you bothered to say why the NRA distances itself from Hillary in spite of your so-called cogent, rational gibberish or are you more interested in windy verbose preambles?
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 6, 2016 14:29:13 GMT -5
I know this as a fact
On major issues, no one is going to get another person to change their opinion on this thread
Not even with a gun to their heads
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Nov 6, 2016 14:33:44 GMT -5
This is why we have so much political gridlock. I deliver a cogent, rational response to your baseless innuendo [snip] Have you bothered to say why the NRA distances itself from Hillary in spite of your so-called cogent, rational gibberish or are you more interested in windy verbose preambles? No game playing. I'm not jumping through hoops for you. You don't get to launch an attack a candidate you don't like, refuse to support your arguments, than portray me as irrational for rational on-point remarks - and then demand I leave the topic and dance to your tune. Good faith begets good faith. So I will answer your NRA question if you either: a) admit you have no basis for your position and apologize for writing that I was being silly OR b) present some evidence that Hillary wants to prevent you from owning a gun. Not the NRA's fact-free ad. Something from her, her campaign, even a Wikileaks email of questionable provenance. My time is finite. Debates with people I disagree with have to involve real good faith efforts to seek the truth. I don't want to waste my time on a rituatlized, pre-programmed dance.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 15:08:00 GMT -5
No game playing. I'm not jumping through hoops for you. You don't get to launch an attack a candidate you don't like, refuse to support your arguments, than portray me as irrational for rational on-point remarks - and then demand I leave the topic and dance to your tune. Good faith begets good faith. So I will answer your NRA question if you either: a) admit you have no basis for your position and apologize for writing that I was being silly OR b) present some evidence that Hillary wants to prevent you from owning a gun. Not the NRA's fact-free ad. Something from her, her campaign, even a Wikileaks email of questionable provenance. My time is finite. Debates with people I disagree with have to involve real good faith efforts to seek the truth. I don't want to waste my time on a rituatlized, pre-programmed dance. You are now laying out demands? Wtf? Simply put, as recent as the last debate, did she not reiterate her position that the supreme court was wrong in its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v Heller, which overturned Washington DC’s ban on handgun ownership? When you want to make repeated comments questioning a key US supreme court decision on gun ownership, it does put your position on the second amendment under closer scrutiny. If Hillary wins, can she not make appointments to the Supreme Court which can overturn Heller? Gun associations and groups do not trust this woman. You can answer however the hell you like but I won't waste further time responding to someone whose preamble above is so patently foolish.
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Nov 6, 2016 17:18:50 GMT -5
LOL
So it took Comey a year to go through 600k emails...yet he then reviews 650k emails in a span of 4 days?
Yep, nothin fishy about that at all...
|
|