MASSIVE Erection Thread 2016 - Lizard has the advantage. Trump is spiraling towards defeat.

First title

second title

third title

Fourth title

Fifth and Sixth title

Seventh title

eighth title

Ninth title

tenth title

All discussion of the candidates, updates and results should go here

For example- here's a video of Ted Cruz vying for world domination.

Also Hilary Clinton is a crook and nobody should have sex with her.

Discuss

(Note- The title will change as we get nearer the election, previous titles will be archived in the OP)

 

[Shugo]

His advisers will straighten him out, you say?
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/14/donald-trump-epa-myron-ebell-climate-change-505546.html

Neat, I didn't know he doubled-down on his environmental views with that sort of pick.

If you want to know how Trump supporters can still support him, it's because they simply don't care or barely care about the environment. It's not an important issue for them.

There are many other reasons people pick to vote for Trump, no matter what stance he takes on the environment or social issues.

For example, thousands if not millions of people are voting for Trump solely because he supports a national concealed handgun carry licensing system, and he doesn't oppose the Heller vs. DC opinion like Hillary, which affirms that the 2nd amendment protects your right to own a gun. Hillary openly opposes the ruling that says gun ownership is a constitutional right.

 

[Fougaro]

My apologies if it may be off topic but remember the journo I posted a few pages ago who chimped out because of Trump fans trolling his kids? Apparently he was a Pedo Dan long before Dan himself if this pastebin is to be believed.


Does anyone happen to know more by any chance?

 

[Ahffline]

We are currently in the middle of a slapfest between an anti-vax birther reality tv star, a criminal who called black teens super predators and held a seance in the white house and two people who are even more crazy, I can't tell what's a joke any longer.

Makes me nostalgic for the good ole days when Nancy Reagan's belief in astrology was revealed to the public. That seems so quaint by today's standards. Fuck.

One of the biggest voting motivations in this campaign is "Vote for X, because at least X isn't as evil/crooked/stupid/ignorant/insane as Y." But the reality is that it's a contest between pieces of crap. One may have a toupee and the other may wear pantsuits, but they're both flawed, terrible candidates.

 

[millais]

Would Clinton really be able to force major change on 2nd Amendment? Seems so thoroughly entrenched in the conservative political establishment and with such big special interest and lobbying groups that it would be difficult even for Clinton to shift the status quo

 

[Tranhuviya]

Would Clinton really be able to force major change on 2nd Amendment? Seems so thoroughly entrenched in the conservative political establishment and with such big special interest and lobbying groups that it would be difficult even for Clinton to shift the status quo

Optimistic.

She'll just bring out the weeping mothers and the Brady Campaign people, and try to pass another AWB.

 

[millais]

Optimistic.

She'll just bring out the weeping mothers and the Brady Campaign people, and try to pass another AWB.

What else could they ban from import that isn't already manufactured here or already imported in large numbers before the AWB? I like guns and don't want the government to take them away, but I don't really think it will be a deciding issue for me between these two candidates since 2nd Amendment seems untouchable

 

[Ahffline]

Would Clinton really be able to force major change on 2nd Amendment? Seems so thoroughly entrenched in the conservative political establishment and with such big special interest and lobbying groups that it would be difficult even for Clinton to shift the status quo

No, she can't. Amendments to the US Constitution can only be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. The POTUS has no role in the amendment process.

It's a great bogeyman for the political fringes to use though, the idea that the POTUS has that kind of power.

 

[Ruin]

No, she can't. Amendments to the US Constitution can only be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. The POTUS has no role in the amendment process.

It's a great bogeyman for the political fringes to use though, the idea that the POTUS has that kind of power.

She can't just say "there's no second amendment anymore lol" but she can admit activist judges to the supreme court who will essentially nullify the second amendment by reinterpreting it.

 

[Shugo]

Would Clinton really be able to force major change on 2nd Amendment?

The Heller vs DC decision was a 5-4 split. One of the 5 who were in the majority opinion died. The current court is a 4-4 split on the issue of gun ownership being a constitutional right.

If she appoints a judge who disagrees with it, they court certainly destroy the 2nd amendment from legally granting any protections to own a gun.

It's a great bogeyman for the political fringes to use though, the idea that the POTUS has that kind of power.

If the Heller vs. DC opinion is reversed through a judge Hillary appoints, it's possible. You don't have to repeal the 2nd amendment. All you need is the Supreme Court to rule that the 2nd amendment does not protect an individual's right to own a gun. As soon as they do so, it becomes constitutional to outlaw handguns. That's part of the law that the Supreme Court struck down: handgun ownership was outlawed in DC, and only allowed for the few people who had a handgun before the law was put into place in 1975 or so.

As soon as a judge gets into the Supreme Court who opposes the Heller vs. DC opinion, cities like Chicago and DC can outlaw handguns again. They then can go piece by piece and outlaw more and more guns, since there is no longer any individual constitutional protection for owning a gun.

 

[Ahffline]

She can't just say "there's no second amendment anymore lol" but she can admit activist judges to the supreme court who will essentially nullify the second amendment by reinterpreting it.

That's certainly possible, but highly unlikely. She'd be better off trying to get a legislative ban on certain weapons through Congress than to attempt something through the judicial branch. The text of the amendment clearly states that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Courts could only interpret the type of arms allowed, not the right itself.

 

[Shugo]

The text of the amendment clearly states that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Courts could only interpret the type of arms allowed, not the right itself.

The vote on Heller vs. DC was split 5-4. It is very possible and very close to happening. As you say, the amendment is very clear with its wording, but 4 of them believed it is constitutional to outlaw handguns because they some how do not qualify as arms.

Before the Supreme Court has ruled that short-barreled shotguns were not "arms" because they did not serve a militia purpose. What arms is Hillary trying to outlaw? Handguns, which are issued to our military's officers, and rifles with 30 round capacities that fire 5.56 cartridges, which are issued to our military's soldiers.

How could it be constitutional to outlaw arms that our military uses? How is it constitutional to outlaw any arms at all? How can you not be infringing on "the right to keep and bear arms" by outlawing huge classes of arms? Arms are historically weapons for military use.

 

[Ahffline]

The Heller vs DC decision was a 5-4 split. One of the 5 who were in the majority opinion died. The current court is a 4-4 split on the issue of gun ownership being a constitutional right.

If she appoints a judge who disagrees with it, they court certainly destroy the 2nd amendment from legally granting any protections to own a gun.

If the Heller vs. DC opinion is reversed through a judge Hillary appoints, it's possible. You don't have to repeal the 2nd amendment. All you need is the Supreme Court to rule that the 2nd amendment does not protect an individual's right to own a gun. As soon as they do so, it becomes constitutional to outlaw handguns. That's part of the law that the Supreme Court struck down: handgun ownership was outlawed in DC, and only allowed for the few people who had a handgun before the law was put into place in 1975 or so.

As soon as a judge gets into the Supreme Court who opposes the Heller vs. DC opinion, cities like Chicago and DC can outlaw handguns again. They then can go piece by piece and outlaw more and more guns, since there is no longer any individual constitutional protection for owning a gun.

Doubtful. The case would go to the Supreme Court, and SCOTUS justices are subject to hearings before the Senate Judicial Committee. Since the Dems are unlikely to gain control of the Senate in November, any SCOTUS appointees would face a Repub-led committee. And they certainly wouldn't approve anti-Second Amendment justices.

Is it possible? Yes. Likely? Nah.

How could it be constitutional to outlaw arms that our military uses? How is it constitutional to outlaw any arms at all? How can you not be infringing on "the right to keep and bear arms" by outlawing huge classes of arms? Arms are historically weapons for military use.

Even Scalia himself wrote that the right to bear arms was not unlimited. There's a difference between weapons kept for protection versus those clearly meant for warfare. Or do you believe that any US citizen - provided they have the cash to fund it - should have the right to own weapons like RPGs?

 

[Shugo]

Or do you believe that any US citizen - provided they have the cash to fund it - should have the right to own weapons like RPGs?

Yes, and they do. To buy an explosive, it's only a $200 tax for the transfer. The reason why you don't have people RPGing places is, RPGs are expensive.

Even if it is limited, why would arms which have a use in a militia, as seen by being issued to our military, be limited? The original intent of the 2nd amendment is for militia use. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 by saying short-barreled rifles do not have any militia use.

What is the constitutional argument for outlawing 30 round magazines, "assault weapons," and handguns? The militia clause in the 2nd amendment clearly shows "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not limited only to arms for self protection. And what makes rifles with 30 round magazines unsuitable for self defense?

 

[Ineedahero]

One of the biggest voting motivations in this campaign is "Vote for X, because at least X isn't as evil/crooked/stupid/ignorant/insane as Y." But the reality is that it's a contest between pieces of crap. One may have a toupee and the other may wear pantsuits, but they're both flawed, terrible candidates.

I can't remember who said it and I can't seem to find it at the moment, but earlier in the thread someone called these two candidates the natural outcome of the common tactic of voting against a candidate instead of for one. They were completely right, and if I was more optimistic I would hope this election serves as a wake up call to the American people.

 

[Tranhuviya]

The one policy proposal I can really truly get behind with Clinton is the expansion of the Peace Corps.

I think that would be mutually beneficial for us and others. It would teach American youth on the value of a globally active America, and it teaches foreigners that we're not all SOF dudes with our fingers on the trigger of our silenced MP5K.

 

[millais]

Peace Corps is a total joke run by incompetents. They have an astonishing number of rape and sexual assault cases associated with the organization's overseas activities in the past few decades.

 

[Ruin]

Peace Corps is a total joke run by incompetents. They have an astonishing number of rape and sexual assault cases associated with the organization's overseas activities in the past few decades.

This. The peace corps volunteers rape almost as much as U.N peacekeepers and Islamic refugees do. Third world countries probably hate us partially because we keep sending drunk college kids there to rape their women.

 

[millais]

This. The peace corps volunteers rape almost as much as the U.N peacekeepers and Islamic refugees do. Third world countries probably hate us partially because we keep sending drunk college kids there to rape their women.

Funny thing about the Peace Corps is that the rape goes both ways. Many reported cases of American women in Peace Corps getting raped by locals- average of 22 rapes each year, hundreds more in attempted sexual assaults. Peace Corps doesn't make much of an effort if any to help victims

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/us/11corps.html

 

[Ruin]

Funny thing about the Peace Corps is that the rape goes both ways. Many reported cases of American women in Peace Corps getting raped by locals- average of 22 rapes each year, hundreds more in attempted sexual assaults. Peace Corps doesn't make much of an effort if any to help victims

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/us/11corps.html

The Peace Corps is shitty in two major ways.

1- It sends poorly screened people who have ill will to parts of the world with very few law enforcement resources so that they can cause havoc with impunity.

2- It sends well meaning but naive women to horrifically dangerous shitholes and then does nothing to assist the victims when they are inevitably raped.

Really the organization is just shitty altogether and needs to be restructured or shut down and replaced with something better.

 

[Shugo]

Many reported cases of American women in Peace Corps getting raped by locals- average of 22 rapes each year

I don't doubt it. They send women in their lower 20s to Africa with no real protection and less rule of law and are surprised when the locals in poverty rape them.