ISideWith 2016 US President Election

[Cappytaino]

They could also threaten to put economic sanctions, which could scare china into doing it anyways. It's a hell of a lot more dangerous to be playing with the fate of the entire earth rather than a couple of countries.

China is notoriously stubborn. Just look at the days of Mao to see that. Let's make stuffty steel in people's backyards instead of food! They don't give two stuffs about their carbon emissions, and I doubt our threats would hurt them very much. It would hurt a small bit, but they would still be a growing industrial power regardless.

[Ad Bot]

[Ipquarx]

China is notoriously stubborn. Just look at the days of Mao to see that. Let's make stuffty steel in people's backyards instead of food! They don't give two stuffs about their carbon emissions, and I doubt our threats would hurt them very much. It would hurt a small bit, but they would still be a growing industrial power regardless.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Neither of us are economic experts, I think it's fair to say neither of us know with any certainty what would happen. All I know is with a president that cares, a significant difference can be made.

[Tudoreleu]

i'm not an american but

[Cappytaino]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Neither of us are economic experts, I think it's fair to say neither of us know with any certainty what would happen. All I know is with a president that cares, a significant difference can be made.

A president that cares can make a difference, sure, but at what cost? Change my views. I'm a left-leaning libertarian and I think that all the Democratic candidates who care about climate change are going to go against other views I have. For example, the 2nd Amendment is very important to me, and you have to agree that the left has some nutters who want to take firearms away from responsible people. I believe the second amendment was devised to protect from usurpation and tyrrany. I believe the second and first amendments to be vital to our identity as an American people, as I believe it's naieve to think the government wouldn't turn tyrannical, and eleven million people are ashes in the ground in Europe because of tyrrany and usurpation. Why should someone like me vote against my core beliefs for the sake of the environment? Do we legitimately have any chance of convincing China to listen?

[Ipquarx]

A president that cares can make a difference, sure, but at what cost? Change my views. I'm a left-leaning libertarian and I think that all the Democratic candidates who care about climate change are going to go against other views I have. For example, the 2nd Amendment is very important to me, and you have to agree that the left has some nutters who want to take firearms away from responsible people. I believe the second amendment was devised to protect from usurpation and tyrrany. I believe the second and first amendments to be vital to our identity as an American people, as I believe it's naieve to think the government wouldn't turn tyrannical, and eleven million people are ashes in the ground in Europe because of tyrrany and usurpation. Why should someone like me vote against my core beliefs for the sake of the environment? Do we legitimately have any chance of convincing China to listen?

In order to change your views you have to stop thinking about yourself and "your country." This isn't about saving our generation's lives, global warming isn't severe enough yet to pose a serious threat to our lives. This isn't about saving a country either. This is about the long haul. This is about saving the most precious thing that we know of in the entire observable universe. This planet is the only one we know of that contains life, and humans are the only ones that we know of that have the capability to actually understand the universe. If global warming continues, humans will die off and eventually go completely extinct. and the rest of life on this planet is at risk too.

None of these candidates are wanting to violate your amendment, Bernie however does want to increase gun control, something I don't agree with. Gun control has never worked in the past and won't work in the future. As I've said, he'll never be able to take away your constitutional rights. It simply would not be allowed. You'll still be allowed to carry a gun, it'll just be harder to get. Again, I don't agree with it, but it's a small price to pay for making big steps towards reversing damage to the entire planet.

[Cappytaino]

In order to change your views you have to stop thinking about yourself and "your country." This isn't about saving our generation's lives, global warming isn't severe enough yet to pose a serious threat to our lives. This isn't about saving a country either. This is about the long haul. This is about saving the most precious thing that we know of in the entire observable universe. This planet is the only one we know of that contains life, and humans are the only ones that we know of that have the capability to actually understand the universe. If global warming continues, humans will die off and eventually go completely extinct. and the rest of life on this planet is at risk too.

None of these candidates are wanting to violate your amendment, Bernie however does want to increase gun control, something I don't agree with. Gun control has never worked in the past and won't work in the future. As I've said, he'll never be able to take away your constitutional rights. It simply would not be allowed. You'll still be allowed to carry a gun, it'll just be harder to get. Again, I don't agree with it, but it's a small price to pay for making big steps towards reversing damage to the entire planet.

The first amendment is also very important to me, and though I don't agree with hate speech, as long as there is a clear line drawn between speech and threats of violence, I believe people should be able to say what they want. For example, you can say, I hate white people, but not I'm going to go out and kill every white person I see. I don't know how Bernie Sanders feels about speech, but I'm completely against censorship of information in general.

[Ipquarx]

The first amendment is also very important to me, and though I don't agree with hate speech, as long as there is a clear line drawn between speech and threats of violence, I believe people should be able to say what they want. For example, you can say, I hate white people, but not I'm going to go out and kill every white person I see. I don't know how Bernie Sanders feels about speech, but I'm completely against censorship of information in general.

???
What does that have to do with anything?

[Cappytaino]

???
What does that have to do with anything?

I'm just afraid of suppression of information, and forgot to phrase my question; what are Bernie Sanders' views on censorship?

[Ipquarx]

I'm just afraid of suppression of information, and forgot to phrase my question; what are Bernie Sanders' views on censorship?

As far as I know he hasn't said anything on it, I'm almost certain if he said he was against the first amendment it would have made news considering he was a relatively popular candidate, but I could try to find a formal statement.

[Cappytaino]

As far as I know he hasn't said anything on it, I'm almost certain if he said he was against the first amendment it would have made news considering he was a relatively popular candidate, but I could try to find a formal statement.

I was having trouble finding anything as well, which is why I was asking. I guess I'll have to keep looking/wait for a statement.

[Tenshi]

Gun control has never worked in the past and won't work in the future. As I've said, he'll never be able to take away your constitutional rights. You'll still be allowed to carry a gun, it'll just be harder to get.

We must walk as slow as our slower member to move forward. The reason we have laws in place is because of the few who forget up so badly they ruin it for everyone else. The reason we have laws for automobiles is because a forget up wrecked into another. Yet when we have a mass shooting every few weeks some believe the answer is more guns. If you own a gun and are responsible with it, you are fine. However, some boob decides to take it to a school and shoot another; thats when stricter laws must be in place that reduce the chances of another maniac acquiring a weapon.

If you have guns lying about around your home; they are a danger to yourself and others especially with children around.
If you have guns locked in a safe and think yourself a responsible gun owner; what use are those guns if someone breaks in your home and threatens your family; are you going to ask the guy to hold on a minute while you unlock your safe?
If you feel in constant danger of someone harming your family, how many enemies do you have?
You are statistically more likely to use a firearm on yourself than another person.

Most gun owners are responsible, but its not the responsible ones that are causing the problems.
Again, people forget things up for the majority and thats why stricter laws must be in place. It's unpleasant that your freedom to do as you please must be tightened; but thats how life works.

[Ipquarx]

I was having trouble finding anything as well, which is why I was asking. I guess I'll have to keep looking/wait for a statement.

Well, I know almost certainly he would be against the Trans Pacific Partnership, which could potentially allow the government to censor any website that contains copyrighted material, so I would think he's all for it. All in all I seriously doubt he's against it.

-snip-

The reason that gun control doesn't work is that it's easy for a criminal to get access to guns illegally. They're the overwhelming majority of the people that "screw it up" for everyone else. Implementing gun control will in no way affect actually dangerous criminals, which means less guns to defend yourself with.

Yes, it's a tragedy when a gun-related accident occurs, but they're not even the reason most people that want gun control want it.

[XR-7]

We must walk as slow as our slower member to move forward. The reason we have laws in place is because of the few who forget up so badly they ruin it for everyone else. The reason we have laws for automobiles is because a forget up wrecked into another. Yet when we have a mass shooting every few weeks some believe the answer is more guns. If you own a gun and are responsible with it, you are fine. However, some boob decides to take it to a school and shoot another; thats when stricter laws must be in place that reduce the chances of another maniac acquiring a weapon.

If you have guns lying about around your home; they are a danger to yourself and others especially with children around.
If you have guns locked in a safe and think yourself a responsible gun owner; what use are those guns if someone breaks in your home and threatens your family; are you going to ask the guy to hold on a minute while you unlock your safe?
If you feel in constant danger of someone harming your family, how many enemies do you have?
You are statistically more likely to use a firearm on yourself than another person.

Most gun owners are responsible, but its not the responsible ones that are causing the problems.
Again, people forget things up for the majority and thats why stricter laws must be in place. It's unpleasant that your freedom to do as you please must be tightened; but thats how life works.

Er....I think I mostly agree with this.

Guns should be okay to acquire so long as your subject to testing and are deemed worthy by certified instructors to possess a firearm. Anyone not mentally capable of harnessing their actions or feelings should not be able to freely wield a weapon.

Defending your property and/or family from harm warrants lethal force in my opinion. If I had a gun and some stupid nignog broke into my house to cause harm or steal my person, my family, or my belongings, he's going to be lying in a bloody pool on the floor before I call authorities.

I'm not going to try to incapacitate him. I won't risk trying to get him unconscious and leaving him. What if he manages to revive before someone can take care of him? Our first encounter was dangerous enough and put my/others life(ves) in danger and I don't want to face a second matchup. You picked the wrong house, bud.

[Tenshi]

The reason that gun control doesn't work is that it's easy for a criminal to get access to guns illegally. They're the overwhelming majority of the people that "screw it up" for everyone else. Implementing gun control will in no way affect actually dangerous criminals, which means less guns to defend yourself with.

Yes, it's a tragedy when a gun-related accident occurs, but they're not even the reason most people that want gun control want it.

Loose gun control laws allow criminals to attain guns easily; using such venues as the black market. However; tighten gun control laws by requiring mental health evaluations and criminal background checks can decrease the chance of a firearm from landing into the hands of one who should not be given one. Outlaw guns for civilians and the price for guns will increase on the blackmarket. If you stroll up into the black market yelling "give me guns" like someone with a mental disability, i'm sure it's going to lessen the chances of them selling you one.

Violence breeds violence. The more guns given the more problems will arise. Stricter gun laws are not a thorough solution but a means to reduce the chances of a gun landing into the hands of someone who shouldn't have it. If such things has the capability of such a reduction, which it does, should we not enact such laws to deter such violence? Or would you rather keep having theatres and schools shot up because everyone should have a gun to defend themselves. After all, i'm sure that guy was defending himself from that theatre full of people.

Er....I think I mostly agree with this.

Guns should be okay to acquire so long as your subject to testing and are deemed worthy by certified instructors to possess a firearm. Anyone not mentally capable of harnessing their actions or feelings should not be able to freely wield a weapon.

Defending your property and/or family from harm warrants lethal force in my opinion. If I had a gun and some stupid nignog broke into my house to cause harm or steal my person, my family, or my belongings, he's going to be lying in a bloody pool on the floor before I call authorities.

I'm not going to try to incapacitate him. I won't risk trying to get him unconscious and leaving him. What if he manages to revive before someone can take care of him? Our first encounter was dangerous enough and put my/others life(ves) in danger and I don't want to face a second matchup. You picked the wrong house, bud.

Thats the thing, having a simple handgun to defend yourself is not a problem. Having stricter gun control laws to filter who is capable of purchasing a firearm should be accepted by all as it is rational to want to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are not mentally stable enough to use them responsibly. Also who the hell needs an assault rifle. They are called ASSAULT rifles for a reason. I don't hear anyone wanting to buy a DEFEND rifle.

[Otis Da HousKat]

If I had a gun and some stupid nignog broke into my house

What if it was a stupid white person?