Political Point and Counterpoint

[smjjames]

Come on GD, I wouldn't even put any of the candidates on the same level of terribleness as Trump, though I suspect you mean the re-election of Trump here.

[Guard Dog]

Trump is going to get the Republican nomination. It's just going to happen. Most of the Democrats running, while certainly better people than he is, are unacceptable to me at least because of policy preference. Personally I like Tusli Gabbard but even if it came down to her vs the orange menace I still wouldn't vote for either of them. I will not vote for a Republican, especially him, and I cannot vote for a Democrat. Not even her. For reasons you already know so I won't repeat them. The choice between an unacceptably flawed human being and an unacceptable political position is no choice at all. Vote LP, Green, etc, or write in someone else.

 

Now 2016 you had a choice between a bag of cow s--t and a bag of horse s--t. You chose the one that offended you the least. Or the smart ones said f--k them both and voted 3rd party. 

[Gromnir]

Trump is going to get the Republican nomination. It's just going to happen. Most of the Democrats running, while certainly better people than he is, are unacceptable to me at least because of policy preference. Personally I like Tusli Gabbard but even if it came down to her vs the orange menace I still wouldn't vote for either of them. I will not vote for a Republican, especially him, and I cannot vote for a Democrat. Not even her. For reasons you already know so I won't repeat them. The choice between an unacceptably flawed human being and an unacceptable political position is no choice at all. Vote LP, Green, etc, or write in someone else.

 

Now 2016 you had a choice between a bag of cow s--t and a bag of horse s--t. You chose the one that offended you the least. Or the smart ones said f--k them both and voted 3rd party. 

 

hate to admit this, but kang was right.

 

 

or was it kodos?  whatever.  point is, if you voted 3rd party in wisconsin, pennsylvania, north carolina or michigan, then you were arguable stoopid, but am doubting gd sees that way.

 

oh, and seeing how nz has gone ahead and decided to ban semi-autos and ar-15s...

 

 

sure, this guy is hardly the norm, but one may see how quick a double-action may be fired and how easy it is to quick reload a revolver with even a little practice. as we mentioned earlier, double-action revolvers is not semi-auto.  a single pull o' the trigger fires and reloads, so descriptions o' semi-auto is frequent failing to convey practical differences.  

 

school shootings and mosque attacks and what not tend to take place inside buildings which is not gonna be testing practical limits o' a rifle's range.  perhaps gd or shady could tell us what ranges they had to be proficient at as marines with their m4 or m-16 or whatever?   a loon with a duffle bag filled with a couple smith and wesson revolvers, a pump action shotgun, and a bunch o' ammo is gonna be more lethal in the confines o' most buildings than he would be with an ar-15 and a bunch o' ammo clips. 

 

however, bear hunters and vermin plinkers will be almost complete unaffected by nz ban on semi-auto weapons.  we no longer hunt, and our personal most powerful firearm is a model 700 7mm, but bear rifles is typical bolt action.  am certain if somebody were to ask a bear hunter for rifle recommendations, they would get a list o' .375 (or similar) and .45-70 government bolt action or lever weapons. if the bear hunter misses with their first two shots, and the bear charges (unlikely bet definite possible) then they typical switch to their backup defense weapon, which is also gonna be a manual weapon, particular for big bear-- likely a .454 casull handgun or pump-action 12 gauge.

 

hasn't been many auto-loaders chambered enough to handle the kinda ammo needed to take down bear, and even rifles which does fire right ammo is gonna need be extreme reliable in terrible conditions.  just hasn't been many such guns made. 

 

and killing bunnies sure don't require semi-auto.  just silly.

 

semi-autos is far more popular for hog hunters. fair point.

 

as such, the nz semi-auto ban won't genuine make much difference to anybody save pig hunters and gun enthusiasts, but it sure won't make people safer neither. 

 

aside, we did know a couple bear hunting guys who swore by their browning bar.  don't think o' ww2 fully auto bar. civi browning bar is semi-auto and chambered up to .338.

 

additional aside, we know folks who hunt brown bear with a bow, which is kinda for adrenaline junkies only and almost as stoopid in our book as voting 3rd party in wisconsin 2016.  you can double-lung a brown and it might still cover 50yds before it drops. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 21, 2019 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

You are right Grom, I do not agree. Voting for a terrible candidate just because an even more terrible candidate is on the other ticket IS throwing your vote away. When you vote for the lesser evil you are still voting for evil.

 

Right now the LP is raising a lot of money and a lot of good people are dedicating a lot of volunteer hours trying to get 50 state ballot access for the LP presidential candidate in 2020. There isn't even a single candidate running but people have been busting their butts on their behalf since 2017. The Green party is doing the same right now. If just 1.1% more of the 137.7 million votes cast had chosen Johnson over the "lesser" evil they would not have to do that. The 2020 candidate would have ballot access. And all of that effort and money could be directed at getting better candidates elected. So every vote for Johnson was NOT wasted. There were bigger prizes to be had than wining the election. I wish to God more people realized that. There was no expectation that a vote for Johnson was going to lead to him getting elected. No matter what the 45th President of the US was going to be an utter piece of s--t that had no business being in change of anything. Our fates were already sealed. But what COULD have happened was setting up better things for better candidates to come. 

 

We need to take a longer view of this than the immediacy of the next election. We will be facing the same choice next year no matter who is running for the LP. A vote for Justin Amash (if it is him) isn't JUST a vote for him. It's a vote to break this stranglehold the D & R have over the process in elections to come. You and I should both know the United States is completely f-----g doomed unless this is brought under control: http://www.usdebtclock.org/. Nobody currently running gives f--k about that. That alone should be reason enough NOT to vote for any of them. 

 

Just my $.02

[Gromnir]

had this debate once or twice. 

 

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/107959-the-political-thread-browncoat-edition-down-with-the-alliance/?p=2140545

 

ross perot had 19% of vote in 92.  johnson's numbers is insignificant by comparison and ross perot did not usher in a sea change for 3rd party candidates or reform. 

 

and yeah, our priorities is income inequality and debt crisis, which were not gonna be addressed by clinton or trump. 'course a libertarian with 0 Congressional support would be almost as ineffectual as is trump, though less dangerous.  even so, if johnson were other than a turd bag candidate, we mighta' considered voting for him.

 

 

like it or not, a President is most vital when it comes to foreign relations.  americans expecting their President to do what Congress is 'sposed to do is perhaps the real problem. even so, johnson were the more honorable choice in 2016, but not necessarily better... and definite kinda stoopid if voting for him in the four keys states we mentioned.

 

regardless, vote against a bad candidate is perfect reasonable.  

 

again, reform party had 19% in 92.  meaningless.  libertarians, the party we most identify with, is going at this complete bass ackwards.  start getting more recognition local and state where being a libertarian actual means something. makes more sense than repeated proving kodos right.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

The Reform Party didn't exist until after 1992. Perot ran as an independent. And the current rules for ballot access were changed in many states in the years since. Not a good comparison. 

 

And voting against a candidate is a perfectly valid choice. I've voted against someone my entire life until 2008. I liked McCain so I did vote FOR him so he was the first. And unless something unexpected happens he will be the last Republican that ever gets my vote. But voting for the lesser evil, it's killing us long term. Who was the last President whose leadership you really respected? Has there even been one in your lifetime?

 

Of course Johnson wasn't a good candidate. He wouldn't have made a good President. But he was never going to BE president. A vote for Johnson was a vote for someone running in 2020, 2024. It was a vote for congressional and state candidates who would have benefited from the millions of dollars of donations that is now dedicated to refighting the ballot access battle. And you are in one of the best positions of all. You can vote with a clear conscience. No matter who is running the winner of California is pre-ordained. The vote you cast for Clinton made zero difference. Had you voted for Johnson that would have been one more towards actually changing something. Same with me. But even if the the whole thing came down to just my vote and I lone could have decided the election between Clinton and Trump I STILL would have voted for Johnson. Because I HATED both of them. Why should I accept one bag of s--t over another of slightly different odor and consistency?

 

And yes the LP should be concentrating more on state & Congressional offices. But here is the thing, it is a political party not a movement. It MUST have a face and that means, wasteful as it is, there must be a Presidential ticket. LP candidates are fighting ballot access battles all over the country. It's easier for a congressional candidate to get access when the Presidential candidate already has. When the party is already certified in that state. Right here in my home state the LP candidates must run as independents because the D & R agree on one thing for sure: no one is allowed to run for office but them. 

[Guard Dog]

And then there is this: https://www.studyfinds.org/survey-half-americans-dont-know-what-first-amendment-protections/

 

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill

[HoonDing]

 - "What is Aleppo"

 

- "You're kidding"

 

- "..... No."

 

lol

[Bartimaeus]

No matter who is running the winner of California is pre-ordained.

 

And on that note... Guard Dog, how do you feel about (the mostly Democrat-led) effort to eliminate the electoral college in favor of using the popular vote to elect the president instead?

[Gromnir]

The Reform Party didn't exist until after 1992. Perot ran as an independent. And the current rules for ballot access were changed in many states in the years since. Not a good comparison. 

 

 

 

great comparison.  reform party died after getting 19%. perot and reform knew 3rd party weren't viable. 19% and call it quits.

 

and while it ain't a popular choice, we respected george h.w. bush. a republican who nevertheless championed environmental causes and americans with disabilities. got nafta going. tried to do education reform but were opposed by his own part. thousand points o' light sounds ridiculous by today's standards, but am thinking it were kinda indicative o' the man who believed voluntary grassroots initiatives were how americans could most help improve the nation as a whole.

 

economy sucked, for reasons not bush's doing.  reelection were doomed.

 

woulda' been fine with kerry

 

 

people want the President to do wrong stuff, so is no wonder we get guys incapable o' doing a good job, but there has been major party candidates who did not result in gut clench.

 

3rd party, until gets more support local and state, is pointless for President save as a vote 'gainst some other candidate.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps, have stated before, so we didn't mention, but we also liked mccain. 

 

 

followed campaign contribution limits in spite o' the Court rendering such unconstitutional. 

 

etc.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

 

oh, and seeing how nz has gone ahead and decided to ban semi-autos ..

 

We haven't. Please, feel free to argue the toss with the New Zealand Police though.

 

TL/DR: s/a .22 up to 15 round capacity, still legal. Any s/a calibre gun below .50/ 12.7mm (iirc) and up to 5 shot internal magazine, still legal. What they have banned are semi autos that looks like an AK or AR15 with detachable magazines, similar style shotguns, high capacity mags, and E cat licensing is going.

 

If you're going to opine on other country's gun laws, you could at least get it right.

 

About the only thing I take issue with is labeling the banned guns 'assault rifles' repeatedly to be emotive, and passing the law in council rather than after a proper process.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

 What they have banned are semi autos that looks like an AK or AR15 with detachable magazines, similar style shotguns, high capacity mags, and E cat licensing is going.

 

 

 

dear lord.  just like wod stalinism.

 

nevertheless, thanks for clarification.  largely leaves our post unchanged however.  bear hunters would never have been affected by an sa ban regardless. vermin hunters woulda' remained unhampered.  the added protection from banning some class o' semi-autos and ar-15s *snort* does nothing to enhance protections o' folks from future mosque assaults. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 21, 2019 by Gromnir

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Whatever happened to wod? Did the masses of stalinists get angry with him blowing their cover and disappear him? Or did he go to r/thedonald and /pol/ to hang with the true believers?

[Gromnir]

Whatever happened to wod? Did the masses of stalinists get angry with him blowing their cover and disappear him? Or did he go to r/thedonald and /pol/ to hang with the true believers?

is all a ruse. wod is actual an rbg alter... is a persona for how she posts when doing mushrooms.  unfortunate, we know rbg hasn't been healthy o' late and has had to cut back on her extracurricular habits.  

 

is another reason to hope for a democrat in 2020 'cause then rbg will retire and likely return to doing 'shrooms... can once again post as wod on the obsidian boards.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

He was last online 9 May 18.

[Zoraptor]

 

 What they have banned are semi autos that looks like an AK or AR15 with detachable magazines, similar style shotguns, high capacity mags, and E cat licensing is going.

 

 

 

dear lord.  just like wod stalinism.

 

nevertheless, thanks for clarification.  largely leaves our post unchanged however.  bear hunters would never have been affected by an sa ban regardless. vermin hunters woulda' remained unhampered.  the added protection from banning some class o' semi-autos and ar-15s *snort* does nothing to enhance protections o' folks from future mosque assaults. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Typical Grom. Now you're an expert on pest control in New Zealand.

 

There is no blanket ban on s/a because... they're essential to pest control, here. That is, literally, the reason given for a non blanket ban. But sure, you know best. No doubt you can provide another link from some ill informed US website as justification for your ignorance, I'll just go watch New Zealand's PM, Police Minister and head of the Police literally stating the reasoning on live TV.

 

As for the mosque attacks, if you'd paid the slightest bit of attention there you'd know that if the gunman hadn't been able to quick switch magazines he'd have been taken down, very quickly. No swappable mag s/a AK models and AR15 being available and no high capacity mags does protect against further attacks. It won't 100% prevent them- nothing practical can- but it certainly protects from them.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 What they have banned are semi autos that looks like an AK or AR15 with detachable magazines, similar style shotguns, high capacity mags, and E cat licensing is going.

 

 

 

dear lord.  just like wod stalinism.

 

nevertheless, thanks for clarification.  largely leaves our post unchanged however.  bear hunters would never have been affected by an sa ban regardless. vermin hunters woulda' remained unhampered.  the added protection from banning some class o' semi-autos and ar-15s *snort* does nothing to enhance protections o' folks from future mosque assaults. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Typical Grom. Now you're an expert on pest control in New Zealand.

 

There is no blanket ban on s/a because... they're essential to pest control, here. That is, literally, the reason given for a non blanket ban. But sure, you know best. No doubt you can provide another link from some ill informed US website as justification for your ignorance, I'll just go watch New Zealand's PM, Police Minister and head of the Police literally stating the reasoning on live TV.

 

As for the mosque attacks, if you'd paid the slightest bit of attention there you'd know that if the gunman hadn't been able to quick switch magazines he'd have been taken down, very quickly. No swappable mag s/a AK models and AR15 being available and no high capacity mags does protect against further attacks. It won't 100% prevent them- nothing practical can- but it certainly protects from them.

 

got more than a little experience with pest control by means o' firearms.  new zealand bunnies is wearing kevlar? cloaking tech? am s'posing new zealanders could be horrible shots.

 

and the link wasn't a real excuse for our ignorance.  am in agreement. chicago tribune had exact same title for their initial story, but am agreeing we shoulda' gotten more details. sure, trib could perhaps use same excuse as zor and their flappy-happy use o' conjunctions, but we shoulda' gotten details more than quick-hit articles.

 

see, is not so hard to admit oversight and/or mistake.

 

am gonna again disagree stop swap out o' clips hardly does anything for safety.  look again at video we posted earlier showing how quick even a revolver can be reloaded with even a little practice. as we said, a couple shotguns and revolvers (or non-military sa handguns) in hands o' somebody who has practiced even a smidge, particular in confined indoor areas, is gonna be no less lethal than some clown with an ar-15 and a bunch o' clips.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[ShadySands]

Good on NZ I guess. Not really how I would go about it but then there's probably a reason I'm not in charge of anything.

 

Would prefer to make guns harder to obtain rather than harder to use

[Gromnir]

Good on NZ I guess. Not really how I would go about it but then there's probably a reason I'm not in charge of anything.

 

Would prefer to make guns harder to obtain rather than harder to use

 

agreed.  is a second amendment issue here, but even so, am never understanding what is the preoccupation with military-style weapons following every mass shooting.  

 

link again.

 

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

Bullet control is the key

[Blarghagh]

Here's a thought. You can have all the guns you want, but we ban triggers. It's the best way to prove guns don't kill people!

[Zoraptor]

 

got more than a little experience with pest control by means o' firearms.

 

 

Yeah, in N/S Dakota. So far as I am aware neither is in New Zealand and oddly enough there are differences between there and here. Your self proclaimed expertise does not trump the expertise of actual experts, in New Zealand. Our pest density is simply far higher than in the US, and we have a near absolute need to control them since most lack any natural predators.

 

am gonna again disagree stop swap out o' clips hardly does anything for safety. look again at video we posted earlier showing how quick even a revolver can be reloaded with even a little practice.

 

 

And you'd again be just plain wrong. The guy got tackled while reloading, if he'd been slower or if he'd had fewer bullets loaded he'd have been stopped then and there, and that's addressed by a mag ban. That's not some abstract 'Gromnir think' situation, that's what actually happened in the mosque shooting.

 

[belated edit: it's illegal to view the gunman's video here, I haven't and wouldn't advise anyone else to either]

Edited March 21, 2019 by Zoraptor

[smjjames]

You are right Grom, I do not agree. Voting for a terrible candidate just because an even more terrible candidate is on the other ticket IS throwing your vote away. When you vote for the lesser evil you are still voting for evil.

 

Right now the LP is raising a lot of money and a lot of good people are dedicating a lot of volunteer hours trying to get 50 state ballot access for the LP presidential candidate in 2020. There isn't even a single candidate running but people have been busting their butts on their behalf since 2017. The Green party is doing the same right now. If just 1.1% more of the 137.7 million votes cast had chosen Johnson over the "lesser" evil they would not have to do that. The 2020 candidate would have ballot access. And all of that effort and money could be directed at getting better candidates elected. So every vote for Johnson was NOT wasted. There were bigger prizes to be had than wining the election. I wish to God more people realized that. There was no expectation that a vote for Johnson was going to lead to him getting elected. No matter what the 45th President of the US was going to be an utter piece of s--t that had no business being in change of anything. Our fates were already sealed. But what COULD have happened was setting up better things for better candidates to come. 

 

We need to take a longer view of this than the immediacy of the next election. We will be facing the same choice next year no matter who is running for the LP. A vote for Justin Amash (if it is him) isn't JUST a vote for him. It's a vote to break this stranglehold the D & R have over the process in elections to come. You and I should both know the United States is completely f-----g doomed unless this is brought under control: http://www.usdebtclock.org/. Nobody currently running gives f--k about that. That alone should be reason enough NOT to vote for any of them. 

 

Just my $.02

 

I could have sworn Justin Amash is Republican, or at least former Republican. edit: He apparently self identifies as Libertarian Republican, like Rand Paul I guess.

Edited March 21, 2019 by smjjames

[smjjames]

 

No matter who is running the winner of California is pre-ordained.

 

And on that note... Guard Dog, how do you feel about (the mostly Democrat-led) effort to eliminate the electoral college in favor of using the popular vote to elect the president instead?

 

 

IMO though, it'd be easier to reform it rather than constitutional amendment remove it due to how hard it is to get an amendment through and the red states definetly won't go through with outright removing it.

Edited March 21, 2019 by smjjames

[Gromnir]

 

 

got more than a little experience with pest control by means o' firearms.

 

 

Yeah, in N/S Dakota. So far as I am aware neither is in New Zealand and oddly enough there are differences between there and here. Your self proclaimed expertise does not trump the expertise of actual experts, in New Zealand. Our pest density is simply far higher than in the US, and we have a near absolute need to control them since most lack any natural predators.

 

am gonna again disagree stop swap out o' clips hardly does anything for safety. look again at video we posted earlier showing how quick even a revolver can be reloaded with even a little practice.

 

 

And you'd again be just plain wrong. The guy got tackled while reloading, if he'd been slower or if he'd had fewer bullets loaded he'd have been stopped then and there, and that's addressed by a mag ban. That's not some abstract 'Gromnir think' situation, that's what actually happened in the mosque shooting.

 

[belated edit: it's illegal to view the gunman's video here, I haven't and wouldn't advise anyone else to either]

 

again, we got loads o' personal experience shooting rodents, including rabbits and jackrabbits.  pest density has Zero impact on what firearm is necessary for downing a varmint.  'course given zor's blatant perversions o' the english language, perhaps you refer to actual molecular density o' new zealand rabbits. is new zealand rabbits sooperfied and repel ordinary weapons ammo?

 

zor believes 'cause somebody claims an assailant coulda' been tackled in the heat o' a gun fight 'cause o' the minimal time it takes to reload. naive. the video you cannot see shows a man firing 16 shots from a smith and wesson revolver. 4 seconds, which is including a reload.  you don't need reload individual bullets into a revolver. a lever action rifle is gonna hold ~15+ rounds, if you really want a rifle.  and finding the hero who is gonna rush the assailant while reloading is fantastic, but only works if the assailant don't simple pick up the loaded revolver on the table or ledge in front o' him to shoot the would-be hero as he rushes... then go back to his casual and ghoulish reload. but again, 16 shots in 4 seconds with reload. so again, a couple pump action shotguns or lever action rifles and a couple revolvers is gonna be no less lethal than a guy with an ar-15 and clips.  the shotgun and revolvers is also less likely to jam, though if an ar-15 is proper maintained, jam rate should be low. 

 

this law is nothing more than a security blanket for desperate folks.  give the masses something to feel better 'bout. now the people o' new zealand may tell themselves they did something 'bout a real problem and they can go back to their lives feeling safe and full o' justice. shady is correct, goal should be to keep the weapons outta loon hands.  these kinda bans don't bother us.  am personal in favor o' gun control measures even if 2nd amendment nullifies most such attempts here in the US.  nevertheless, the focus o' gun control measures 'pon particular weapons and accessories is asinine. is bass ackwards.  politicians appeal to the evocative nature o' military weapons to pass measures which complete miss the target.

 

HA! Good Fun!