I don’t hesitate to admit that I am not an android or a Vulcan, my feelings about issues are significant. When someone tells me what a rational and intelligent choice it would be to murder the families of our enemies, my feelings leap out first and shout “NO! Fuck, no!”
But the rational supports that. Killing your enemies is one way to have fewer enemies. But everyone you kill makes an enemy of everyone who loved them. Kill one enemy, make ten more.
When someone says lets be suspicious, legally and officially suspicious of people from an Islamic religious heritage. Its wrong to hurt people like that, to judge them suspicious from no other crime than how they think. It hurts them, you must not hurt people unless you have no other choice.
Rationally, that’s wrong because it plays into the hands of our enemies. Our enemies depend on selling the War on Islam as a propaganda point. indeed, they depend to the point of their very existence! How more stupid can we be than to underscore and verify our enemy’s lies? Where is the logic of that?
Its a happy fact of being leftish that our humane feelings and our reasoning humanism coincide so neatly. Lucky us!
Our opponents do as well, if our enemies don’t hate us enough, we will help them out!
I offer the startling notion that bad feelings and bad thinking lead to bad results. Crazy, I know…
I don’t want Hillary to win because she might appoint a judge who could possibly uphold a ban that doesn’t exist on a weapon I don’t even own. Better play it safe and go with the narcissistic Reality TV star instead.
Makes as much sense as any other reason to vote for Trump, I suppose.
You’ll note that I did not characterize it as a meltdown, I was pointing out his words, and associating his words with a video which shows the interactions. You can ignore the hyperbole in the headline and in the article, but the video speaks for itself.
In general, more judges similar to Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Basically, judges that are opposed to the McDonald and Heller decisions and would likely overturn them if they could, or re-interpret them to leave them meaningless.
The very best! Top men! Top persons, men and woman. Women! Lots of them! Can’t give you names and qualifications, because that would be tipping my hand, but the best! And not just Christians, but Mormons and Catholics as well!
Single issue voters (i.e. 2nd amendment or abortion) truly piss me off…
You would vote for someone solely base on 1 stupid issue that, lets face it, won’t ever really change (see guns: no one is coming after them, they should but NO one is)…
You are willing to risk economic disaster, global embarrassment (of electing an idiot) and potential global havoc (screwing with our decades long allies in NATO, playing into Russia’s hands…)
Ugh… don’t even get me started at how much damage someone like Trump can do to our planet’s environment by his complete lack of caring… think about future generations, is your fear of losing your stupid guns really worth all of this?! !!
If it is just one annoying issue, wouldn’t it seem if that Hillary would say she plans not to trample on said issue, she would contrive more votes? I know it would make a difference for me.
I’m pretty sure she has spoken out on the issue, multiple times. In fact, her position is:
Expand background checks to more gun sales—including by closing the gun show and internet sales loopholes—and strengthen the background check system by getting rid of the so-called “Charleston Loophole.”
Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.
Keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill by supporting laws that stop domestic abusers from buying and owning guns, making it a federal crime for someone to intentionally buy a gun for a person prohibited from owning one, and closing the loopholes that allow people suffering from severe mental illness to purchase and own guns. She will also support work to keep military-style weapons off our streets.
Seems pretty reasonable to me. Pretty sure the majority of Americans would support those positions.
First, that statement did not come from Mrs. Clinton. You were asked what things Mrs. Clinton has said and/or done, not what other people associated with Mrs. Clinton have said and/or done.
Second, let’s look at the whole statement:
Do you believe that toddlers should legally be able to access guns? What is it about a law preventing people from storing guns where toddlers can get them that you believe is bad?
Well, at least this came from Mrs. Clinton. What is it about considering this policy that you don’t like? Why do you think it is unreasonable to look into? Has she made any statements about wanting an Australian-style policy, or are you afraid to even look into it? If statistics and the like showed it was ineffective, do you think Mrs. Clinton would nevertheless support implementing such a policy?
Well, I have even less time. In fact, I have no time to support your positions for you. I’m not aware of any of these people publicly opposing McDonald or Heller, so I cannot fathom how you’ve reached your conclusions.
Heck, your own cite shows that Mrs. Clinton has not named anyone she might consider for the SCOTUS should she win the election: