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)

 

[Marvin]

Sigh.... I'm so tired of hearing about something that, as far as I was always aware, was a basic fact about the entire life of the world. Every freaking four months we go through a type of "climate" change if you think about it.

(and oh, I know how bloody passionate you are about the cause, but there are far greater time bombs ticking than what you believe)

lol of course an anchor baby wouldn't care about climate change. When the sea swallows up the rock you're on, you can just zip on over to the US

 

[Brandobaris]

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?

The actual amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now a Miltia is:
mi·li·tia
(mə-lĭsh′ə)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Now this amendment made up a part of the Bill of Rights, which were a list of amendments proposed by anti-federalists, who feared in the future, the position of the Federal Government and the Office of the President, would gain enough power to become a dictatorship or monarchy in power. Which means the probable intent of the 2nd amendment was to arm the populace in the event of an emergency threat from within the country or without.

I'm wondering at what point a Government becomes so corrupt that the populace overthrows it? Could you even form a rebel army to fight the American Government today without NSA, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security etc etc all turning up to ask what the hell you are doing?

Sorry tangent.

 

[Shugo]

Which means the probable intent of the 2nd amendment was to arm the populace in the event of an emergency threat from within the country or without.

And to be more clear, the Heller vs. DC ruling only protected the right to keep and bear arms 'for traditionally lawful purposes' such as self defense.

The supreme court has not defended the right to keep and bear arms against a potentially corrupt government. But it is interesting to note they have ruled in the past that guns "for militia use" such as for use in a military should be protected from excessive taxation.

 

[*Asterisk*]

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.

There's no reason to believe Trump will be more libertarian on guns than Clinton, and a whole lot of reasons to believe he'll be even worse.

More than just flip-flopping, Trump always goes for the throat of civil liberties when he senses their vulnerability. He called for mass Internet censorship immediately after the San Bernadino attacks. He had Vera Cooking's house set on fire to weasle his way into a limousine parkinglot for his money-sink casino. His defence of the Second Amendment evaporated into hawking for gun control after Sandy Hook and after the Pulse Massacre.

What the fuck do you think is gonna happen when some camel-fucker from Arabia decides to take a Tec-9 to a synagogue next year? He'll get stonewall'd by the House? They're his own party. They'll go along the same way the Dems backed DOMA and DADA during the Clinton years.

Clinton won't be any better. Her execrable behavior on Innocence of Muslims alone shows her regards for civil liberties are every bit as low as Trump's. But at least the GOP won't have to pretend to like her should her carcass finally manages to set foot in the Oval Office.

 

[Shugo]

There's no reason to believe Trump will be more libertarian on guns than Clinton

If Trump somehow gets elected in 2016, and he turns around and goes full gun-banning during his presidency, which I doubt since even congress under Obama couldn't pass any more gun bans after Sandy Hook, he'll have to answer to the 5 million NRA members he lied to. He won't be able to run on the same platform anymore.

Even if he does "change his mind" on gun control, what is he going to get done during his Presidency that Barack Obama couldn't get done despite going so far to fly the parents of murdered children to sit in on a session of Congress during their vote on the legislation he supported? Hillary might appoint a justice to the Supreme Court to eviscerate the 2nd amendment.

Gun rights have taken a huge turn in the USA towards more freedom in the past few decades. He said he supported the assault weapons ban 16 years ago. 6 years before that Hillary Clinton called blacks super predators. Both were mistakes and only one of the candidates is saying the opposite now openly.

Trump has taken a political stance against "assault weapons" bans and high capacity magazine bans. Hillary has taken a political stance for them. I'm going to vote and hope they mean what they say.

Can you show me what Trump said after Sandy Hook in regards to gun rights? I don't see it in your CNN article.

 

[*Asterisk*]

Trump has taken a political stance against "assault weapons" bans and high capacity magazine bans. Hillary has taken a political stance for them. I'm going to vote and hope they mean what they say.

That was your first mistake.

Can you show me what Trump said after Sandy Hook in regards to gun rights? I don't see it in your CNN article.

No problem. Here's the cap, courtesy of Newsweek.

 

[Pikimon]

Does that mean believing vaccines might cause autism, environmentalism is a sham, and tax loopholes ranks up there with treason, destruction of evidence, and funding of terrorism. It's interesting how politics works.

The Pentagon seems to think it's important

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/u...rming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html

 

[Shugo]

The Pentagon seems to think it's important

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/u...rming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html

Experts said that the broadened approach would include considering the role that climate change might have played in contributing to the rise of extremist groups like the Islamic State.

“Climate change and water shortages may have triggered the drought that caused farmers to relocate to Syrian cities and triggered situations where youth were more susceptible to joining extremist groups,” said Marcus D. King, an expert on climate change and international affairs at George Washington University. The Islamic State, often referred to as ISIS, has seized scarce water resources to enhance its power and influence.

Will it ever be possible to quantify "climate change" as the direct cause for a single drought?

I hadn't heard about this directive. This is what Trump referenced during his first debate when he said Clinton and the current administration thinks climate change, not nuclear proliferation, is the biggest threat to the USA. He didn't really put it across well since I didn't understand what he was referring to.

 

[melty]

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.

Tl;dr lots of men will rape anything if they can get away with it. This seems to happen with all these "humanitarian" organizations to the point it's a fucking joke.

 

[Pikimon]

Experts said that the broadened approach would include considering the role that climate change might have played in contributing to the rise of extremist groups like the Islamic State.

“Climate change and water shortages may have triggered the drought that caused farmers to relocate to Syrian cities and triggered situations where youth were more susceptible to joining extremist groups,” said Marcus D. King, an expert on climate change and international affairs at George Washington University. The Islamic State, often referred to as ISIS, has seized scarce water resources to enhance its power and influence.

Will it ever be possible to quantify "climate change" as the direct cause for a single drought?

It's within everyone's best interests to keep our environment in balance and healthy for future generations to come. Everyone can contribute in some way or other.

And its sophomoric to attribute any one natural disaster or weather phenomenom to climate change, it's much more accurate to say that climate change exacerbates pre-existing weather phenomenon (droughts become dryer and much more prevalent, monsoons flood out larger areas, etc.) and changes the overall baseline of temperature over time.

Here's a fairly accurate timeline of changes in climate over time, and their effect on human civilization and planet earth.

Spoiler: Warning: Huge Image

 

[DangerousGas]

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.

That would be me. I remain unconvinced that people will learn from the experience, though.

 

[Shugo]

its sophomoric to attribute any one natural disaster or weather phenomenom to climate change, it's much more accurate to say that climate change exacerbates pre-existing weather phenomenon (droughts become dryer and much more prevalent, monsoons flood out larger areas, etc.) and changes the overall baseline of temperature over time.

The reason why some people are more skeptical of climate change are people who attribute every bad weather phenomenon in the 20th century to climate change. Some blamed Katrina on climate change. We have climate change "experts" blaming ISIS on climate change now.

If they want people to believe them and help conserve the environment, they really do have to stop going off blaming everything on climate change when it really can't be proven at all. It's the reason why some people support Ebel's "Cooler Heads Coalition." To some climate change just sounds like a boogeyman.

 

[Beaniebon]

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 could regulate it, but the conservatives that are scared the national guard is gonna bust down their door and take their gun collection are just paranoid fools.

Honestly, I doubt she even wants to. Like with the free college and being tough on wallstreet talk, its all bullshit and just said to get support. Even if the dems has the house and senate, it'd be very optimistic to think they'd actually do jack about guns.

 

[Pikimon]

The reason why some people are more skeptical of climate change are people who attribute every bad weather phenomenon in the 20th century to climate change. Some blamed Katrina on climate change. We have climate change "experts" blaming ISIS on climate change now. If they want people to believe them and help conserve the environment, they really do have to stop going off blaming everything on climate change when it really can't be proven at all.

The alarmism is real, but justified as our entire way of life is heavily dependent on maintaining very specific parameters of temperature and climate which have wide ramifications on things like our food and water supply. For example, a collapse of agriculture in just California alone would lead to food prices across North America to skyrocket

http://westernfarmpress.com/tree-nuts/what-happens-if-us-loses-california-food-production

a loss of California ag production would hit hard consumers’ wallets and their diets would become less balanced.This is because our state produces a sizable majority of American fruits, vegetables and nuts; 99 percent of walnuts, 97 percent of kiwis, 97 percent of plums, 95 percent of celery, 95 percent of garlic, 89 percent of cauliflower, 71 percent of spinach, and 69 percent of carrots and the list goes on and on. A lot of this is due to our soil and climate. No other state, or even a combination of states, can match California’s output per acre.

Lemon yields, for example, are more than 50 percent higher than neighboring states. California spinach yield per acre is 60 percent higher than the national average. Without California, supply of these products in our country and abroad would dip, and in the first few years, a few might be nearly impossible to find. Orchard-based products specifically, such as nuts and some fruits, would take many years to spring back.

Soon, the effect on consumer prices would become attention-grabbing. Rising prices would force Americans to alter their diets. Grains are locked in a complicated price-dependent relationship with fresh fruits, vegetables and meats. When the price of produce increases, people eat more grain. When the price of grain rises, people eat more fruits and vegetables. (In fact, in some parts of the world, wheat and rice are the only “Giffen goods” – a product in which decreasing prices lead to decreasing demand.) Young people and the poor in America, more than others, eat less fresh fruit when prices rise.

 

[Brandobaris]

The alarmism is real, but justified as our entire way of life is heavily dependent on maintaining very specific parameters of temperature and climate which have wide ramifications on things like our food and water supply. For example, a collapse of agriculture in just California alone would lead to food prices across North America to skyrocket

I care about the environment and sustainability as much as the next guy. But the sort of actual practical changes that corporations need to make in order for this to actually work; they won't allow it. Their mandate is profits and shareholder confidence, whatever they can get away with, they will, from paying pennies to sweatshop workers in Vietnam, to dumping toxic waste directly into the ocean to save costs.

The problem is the Government is usually buddies or former work colleagues from many of these corporations, some of them went to Yale together. To realistically expect any Yale graduate silver spoon politician to make serious policy changes across the board that would help climate change is pure fantasy IMO.

First of all, you have to deal with the lobbies for the various groups you are going against who will fight tooth and nail to get people to block your bill. Secondly, they can pressure donors so you lose campaign funding. Thirdly they simply jack up their prices to cover losses, hit the civilians, and therefore drive negative press back towards you, the policy maker. You get kicked out, and someone that will do what the corporations want replaces you.

 

[Pikimon]

I care about the environment and sustainability as much as the next guy. But the sort of actual practical changes that corporations need to make in order for this to actually work; they won't allow it. Their mandate is profits and shareholder confidence, whatever they can get away with, they will, from paying pennies to sweatshop workers in Vietnam, to dumping toxic waste directly into the ocean to save costs.

The problem is the Government is usually buddies or former work colleagues from many of these corporations, some of them went to Yale together. To realistically expect any Yale graduate silver spoon politician to make serious policy changes across the board that would help climate change is pure fantasy IMO.

First of all, you have to deal with the lobbies for the various groups you are going against who will fight tooth and nail to get people to block your bill. Secondly, they can pressure donors so you lose campaign funding. Thirdly they simply jack up their prices to cover losses, hit the civilians, and therefore drive negative press back towards you, the policy maker. You get kicked out, and someone that will do what the corporations want replaces you.

Then work to push legislation and political candidates that fight for the cause of the environment, and don't want to repeal regulations and agencies that are the baseline for protecting our natural environment. It's not that difficult to differentiate between which political candidates don't give a shit about the environment, and which do.

Current 538 Poll Numbers

Oh and Vice Presidential debate today 10/04/2016 at 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM (Pacific Standard Time)

 

[millais]

70% is damned good odds. I can see Clinton saving up at least a quarter if not a third of the campaign funds for 2020. No need to spend it on a near guaranteed victory

 

[Pikimon]

70% is damned good odds. I can see Clinton saving up at least a quarter if not a third of the campaign funds for 2020. No need to spend it on a near guaranteed victory

It's solid, but as we can see from the second graph it can still change a lot in the next few weeks.

The Vice Presidential debates will basically be Kaine holding a fire under Pence (Cuba scandal, 916 Million Loss, New York Attorney General banning the Trump Foundation from collecting money in New York, etc.) while Pence tries to defend the horrible week Trump has had.

 

[Dain Bramage]

You know, voting for Trump is one thing, but it's pretty damn obvious that a President Trump won't be doing any actual Presidentin'. Donald will be too busy going to state dinners and other diplomatic things. That seems to be all he's good at.

It'll be VP Mike Pence who will be acting as a Super-Cheney doing the REAL governing.

Mike Pence. Mike muther-f*cking religious wackjob gay-bashing ubber-conservative Pence.

Plus having Supreme Court Justice nominees who believe that Social Security is unconstitutional, that 8 year olds should be sent back down to work in coal mines, and that preachers should be allowed to demand that their congregation only be allowed to vote for rightwing republicans, just like Jesus rode his dinosaur to the polling place to vote for.

Consider THAT horrific fact, ladies and gents.

 

[Brandobaris]

Then work to push legislation and political candidates that fight for the cause of the environment, and don't want to repeal regulations and agencies that are the baseline for protecting our natural environment. It's not that difficult to differentiate between which political candidates don't give a shit about the environment, and which do.

But people don't vote that way except niche demographics. The average voter isn't worrying about environmental issues and corporate carbon control as a Primary Issue, that would be somewhere down the bottom. The average voter is concerned with themselves, will I still have a job, will I be able to afford bills and food, is my quality of life threatened in some way? Things like environmental issues, racial quotas, LGBT awareness and rights, they are things people put first on their voter list when they have no personal safety, financial or employment issues, and likely never had any in their entire lives.