• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're not going to get a great rational argument out of me, so I'll say that up front. I do not believe anyone needs to own a gun, and I would support an entire repeal of the 2nd Amendment. I accept that it won't happen, and that I'm probably in the minority.

I believe that all guns should be registered. I believe gun owners should have to insure them as well. On top of that, I believe there should be strict limits on the amount of ammo that people are allowed to purchase. I support a ban on automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

So, I'll gladly accept "common sense" reform. The fact that small steps won't solve everything doesn't mean we shouldn't do something.

See, I think everyone within reason should own a gun (a la Kennesaw, Georgia), but those need to be purchased and registered at least with the state.

My main concern is to prevent these mass shootings. More die from suicides, but I think we need to treat the underlying causes of why people kill themselves.

They hate him so much they won't even throw him a lifeline; even though the implication is they allowed a non-eligible candidate to run for their parties nomination.

It's glorious.

How exactly has his campaign ground to a halt? He's the number two man isn't he still?
 
They aren't wrong in the way I think you're thinking. They're "wrong" in that they're faulty reasoning.

You can make an argument that is nothing but fallacies, and it still comes to the "right" conclusion.

For example, cats don't have thumbs. All creatures without thumbs are trustworthy. Jason Kidd played point guard, but never with Chuck Person. Chuck Person was nicknamed The Rifleman, yet there's no proof he ever owned a gun. Bearing arms isn't a right granted by the Constitution, it's a right protected by the Constitution. Barack Obama doesn't understand the Constitution because he was born in the foreign nation of Hawai'i. Anakin killed all the Jedi. Therefore, Hillary Clinton is a felon who won't even be on the November ballot.

I'm trying to understand what makes them faulty really. If anything, I'm probably just overthinking them (I'm damn good at recognizing them)
 
See, I think everyone within reason should own a gun (a la Kennesaw, Georgia), but those need to be purchased and registered at least with the state.

My main concern is to prevent these mass shootings. More die from suicides, but I think we need to treat the underlying causes of why people kill themselves.



How exactly has his campaign ground to a halt? He's the number two man isn't he still?

I respect that that is how you feel, but I have never, ever in my life felt that I would be better off or safer owning a gun. I also refuse to let anyone bring a gun on my property or in my house. (I'm originally from the South too.)

And, sure, we need to treat the underlying causes of mental illness, just like we need to treat the underlying cause of drug addiction. But, when we know people are cooking meth, we limit (and track) the amount of over the counter medicines they can buy.We can and should do the same thing with guns. It doesn't have to be an either or thing. We deal with mental issues surrounding suicide AND we make it harder for people who are ill to not get a gun.
 
He's in a spot of trouble if he doesn't win Iowa, and we've now got a few polls showing Trump taking over there.

Okay. Thought you meant like there was some internal bickering or the RNC was starting to look into things. My dad says the Dems are stupid to not sue him over running while not being eligible for the office since he's from Canada.

I respect that that is how you feel, but I have never, ever in my life felt that I would be better off or safer owning a gun. I also refuse to let anyone bring a gun on my property or in my house. (I'm originally from the South too.)

And, sure, we need to treat the underlying causes of mental illness, just like we need to treat the underlying cause of drug addiction. But, when we know people are cooking meth, we limit (and track) the amount of over the counter medicines they can buy.We can and should do the same thing with guns. It doesn't have to be an either or thing. We deal with mental issues surrounding suicide AND we make it harder for people who are ill to not get a gun.

And that's totally fair. I doubt either of us will persuade the other to change their beliefs here, but it's good to hear a different opinion. It's definitely not an either/or with how to stop people from suicide.
 
(I am going to respond to the immigration discussion but I am thinking about that post. Normally I don't have to think about anything I post, so it's quicker.)

There's something just beautifully poetic about the idea that Ted Cruz's campaign for president is running into an iceberg not because of any of the insane things he actually did, but because Trump started a birther campaign about him and every single other Republican politician would rather play along than point out it's ridiculous.

It's probably premature to call it an iceberg when there isn't yet evidence that it's hurting him.
 
Okay. Thought you meant like there was some internal bickering or the RNC was starting to look into things. My dad says the Dems are stupid to not sue him over running while not being eligible for the office since he's from Canada.



And that's totally fair. I doubt either of us will persuade the other to change their beliefs here, but it's good to hear a different opinion. It's definitely not an either/or with how to stop people from suicide.

True it is. And, I admit, this is one of the issues I have trouble formulating a coherent argument for, because I simply don't see the point in owning a gun. I lack common ground to build from, really. That's a failure on my part.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I'm trying to understand what makes them faulty really. If anything, I'm probably just overthinking them (I'm damn good at recognizing them)
They're faulty because logical reasoning has a specific manner and order to it. Hence, why symbolic logic is a thing.

An easier way to think of them is as "there's another explanation" or similar. Because the real effect of fallacies in an argument is to make the argument deceptive with each included.

True it is. And, I admit, this is one of the issues I have trouble formulating a coherent argument for, because I simply don't see the point in owning a gun. I lack common ground to build from, really. That's a failure on my part.
It's more that you're working backwards than lacking a needed common ground. I don't see the point in getting married. That doesn't mean I want people to be punished for getting married. (Even despite the increased chances of harm to me from it.)

They get punished enough amirite amirite
 
Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad said Monday that the issue of whether U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is legally eligible to run for the presidency because he was born in Canada is "fair game" on the Republican campaign trail.

"When you run for president of the United States, any question is fair game. So let the people decide," Branstad told reporters at his weekly press briefing at the Iowa Capitol.

Every Ted Cruz birther should get dysentery.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...branstad-cruz-birth-issue-fair-game/78626994/
 

HylianTom

Banned
They're lovers, not friends.

Hmm I just googled Huma/Hillary fanfiction PD I miss you

Huma-Abedin-with-Hillary-Robyn-BeckAFPGetty.jpg


Secret lovers, yeah that's what we are
Trying so hard to hide the way we feel
'Cause we both belong to someone else
But we can't let it go 'cause what we feel
Is, oh so real, so real, so real


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4odvHOJisc
 
Reading that Biden quote in full it seems like he's positive on both candidates. He just says Sanders has been doing it longer, which I think anyone would agree with considering he's practically a single issue candidate.
 

User 406

Banned
Bernie and Hillary were very good in the Iowa forum. Bernie did the stump speech sidestep for a couple questions, and Hillary just refused to get pinned down on the deportation thing, but they otherwise handled everything very well. O'Malley, well, he got hammered a bit at the beginning with the racial justice questions to the point of looking like a deer in the headlights for one of them. He got into a groove later, but he seemed kind of self-serving with all the "I'm the only candidate who yadda yadda" stuff. But I guess when you're that low in the polls, you have to yell louder to sell yourself.

I would love it so much if they could somehow strap the Republican candidates to Hannibal Lecter handcarts and make them answer the same questions. :X
 
Trump a lowkey genius for dropping this bomb right before Iowa.

He is. Dude is damn good at this. I mean, I don't think he has strategist telling him when to do this. I think a lot of this is on him. He doesn't have to move the needle a lot, just peel enough Cruz support to get Iowa. He gets Iowa and NH, I think that's the nomination.
 

Makai

Member
He is. Dude is damn good at this. I mean, I don't think he has strategist telling him when to do this. I think a lot of this is on him. He doesn't have to move the needle a lot, just peel enough Cruz support to get Iowa. He gets Iowa and NH, I think that's the nomination.
Plus the media has been pumping up a Cruz win in Iowa, so he could win the expectations game.
 
On a lighter note, my local area has been freezing lately. Decided to get a beanie to help with the morning walk to the office.

It finally came in the mail!

Looks great next to my mug.

xdNAeyK.jpg
 
I am enjoying watching the left embrace birtherism.

It may be because I tend to avoid the crazy pits of the Left but I haven't actually seen a single Democrat (or further left) seriously suggest that Cruz is ineligible. I've seen plenty of mocking about how little attention it was given compared to Obama and I've seen a great deal of hilarity about Trump going Birther on Cruz and the Republican base buying it / the Establishment not helping Cruz out but I haven't seen a serious claim that Cruz is ineligible because of his birth place. That doesn't really fit embrace to me.

It's actually highly amusing that the Democrats would probably actually say Cruz is eligible. But if he actually asked for that, he'd sink his own candidacy.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Makai, birtherism arguably started as a mainstream concept in the dark depths of the Clinton fanbase in 2008. It crossed over into welcome hands later when Obama became a more legitimate threat to win the nomination.

People forget that Orly was involved with the PUMAs.
 

Kusagari

Member
It may be because I tend to avoid the crazy pits of the Left but I haven't actually seen a single Democrat (or further left) seriously suggest that Cruz is ineligible. I've seen plenty of mocking about how little attention it was given compared to Obama and I've seen a great deal of hilarity about Trump going Birther on Cruz and the Republican base buying it / the Establishment not helping Cruz out but I haven't seen a serious claim that Cruz is ineligible because of his birth place. That doesn't really fit embrace to me.

It's actually highly amusing that the Democrats would probably actually say Cruz is eligible. But if he actually asked for that, he'd sink his own candidacy.

He might not be getting the attention Trump is, but Grayson is making an even bigger stink about it; threatening lawsuits.
 
Makai, birtherism arguably started as a mainstream concept in the dark depths of the Clinton fanbase in 2008. It crossed over into welcome hands later when Obama became a more legitimate threat to win the nomination.

People forget that Orly was involved with the PUMAs.

I'd actually forgotten about that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom