# I see no one worth voting for... **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 16, 2016, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424 "2016-04-16T23:26:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Lok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e8c25b/32.png) [@Lok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lok)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2016, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424/81 "2016-04-25T23:01:17Z")
> [@MacTech](#): > > And my hate for the evil thing called Hillary is completely rational, I don’t know of any firearm owner that could consider voting for her, sad, really, because I don’t exactly hate many of her political positions, but her stance on firearms is a losing stance > > I’m sure if I grew up in a more urban/metropolitan area I’d see things differently, but this rural country guy just can’t stomach her drivel. I have to say, calling someone an evil thing, then saying your hatred for them is completely rational, doesn’t really follow. Most hatred is in fact irrational, and dehumanizing the person is also not a rational thing to do, although it is certainly a common human thing to do. And just to increase your knowledge base, I am in fact a firearms owner, and someone that has enjoyed firing many different firearms for several decades. And I am planning on voting for Hillary Clinton in the General Election in November. I am of course an urban kind of guy, living in the county seat of the county I was born and raised in. Population almost 11,000 in the last census. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2016, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424/82 "2016-04-26T04:59:27Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Your contention is that when Clinton says "absolute immunity - she really means something different than absolute immunity, like for diplomats? That rhetorical tapdancing must be tiring. None of the people who fact check Clinton subscribe to this novel idea.[Washington Post:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/06/fact-checking-the-seventh-democratic-debate/) > [NPR:](http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior) > [Chicago Tribune:](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-democratic-debate-flint-michigan-factcheck-20160306-story.html) > > Though, this may be a repeat of the Washington Post one, though the authors are credited as Chicago Tribune. > > No mention of your fanciful ‘conditional absolute immunity’ or references to diplomatic absolute but not really immunity. When people who understand what Clinton is talking about assess this claim, they know it’s false. That she has repeated a knowing falsehood multiple times makes her a liar. Wow. Let’s unpack all that. None of those sources call Clinton a liar: you are misleading your readership. Absolute immunity is a term generally applied to diplomats: Senator Clinton is borrowing it with accuracy. The word absolute doesn’t even appear in the NPR article: again, you mislead your readers. WAPO characterizes the phrase “Absolute immunity” as an exaggeration: they say, “Still, Clinton has a point. The law provides a unique federal legal shield that most consumer goods manufacturers do not have. There are few industries that have federal liability immunity.” That’s two sources that you have mis-represented. (I agree that the Chicago Trib and WAPO article are closely related.) I find Clinton’s statements regarding the unique federal legal shield enjoyed by gun manufacturers to be far more accurate than your post. > [@](#): > > Second - your claim that firearm manufacturers and dealers have absolute immunity for faulty distribution channels (pending your elaboration of your newly coined term) has been falsified because \>0 number of dealers have been held liable for their distribution methods. Doesn’t get more falsified than that. Er, didn’t you give an example of a gun _seller_ being sued? Because that’s not especially relevant. The NAACP wanted gun manufacturers not to distribute their weapons via sellers known to sell repeatedly to criminals. Smith and Wesson had no problem cleaning up their distribution channels. They received an NRA boycott in response. The 2005 law was specifically geared to avoid the absolute immunity from being sued for distributing your manufactured items via a corrupt seller, right? As for unusual definition, I already linked to the wikipedia article on “[Absolute immunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity)”. The WAPO/Trib article thinks it’s an exaggeration and I don’t find that position unreasonable. It’s yours that is off the wall and misleading to our fine readership. They deserve better. Well, most of them do. Usually. [Another citation](http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/AbsoluteImmunity.html) on absolute immunity, linked from wiki: “Absolute immunity only applies to acts committed within the scope of the official’s duties. Usually, this will not include acts that are committed by the official with malice or corrupt motives.” Again, absolute immunity is typically applied to something that is not boundless in scope. Manufacturers do have absolute immunity against being sued for having a faulty distribution channel, or one where they are distributing their firearms via sellers who repeatedly sell to criminals. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2016, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424/83 "2016-04-26T16:13:03Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Wow. Let’s unpack all that. None of those sources call Clinton a liar: you are misleading your readership. Nor did I claim that any source I’ve linked to has called Clinton a liar. I am calling Clinton a liar. That is based on her repeated false claim. The claim that every source has said is wrong, not accurate, an exaggeration, etc. You said yourself, one instance could be a mistake - several instances is not a mistake. Intentionally repeating a claim that is false with the intent to deceive - that makes her a liar in my book. But I notice this pattern from you - you accuse me of doing something…taking things out of context, only quoting two words, or misrepresenting sources. All of these claims are wrong of course, and when I point it out you ignore it. **Why is that?** You said I was only quoting two words and questioned my honor - but of course I quote entire sentences or paragraphs so your claim is false and you ignore it. You said I took things out of context, and then you used the exact same quote I used and claimed it was in context so this claim was ridiculous and you ignore it. And now you say I’m misleading by attacking a claim I never made. It’s bizarre. > [@](#): > > Absolute immunity is a term generally applied to diplomats: Senator Clinton is borrowing it with accuracy. The word absolute doesn’t even appear in the NPR article: again, you mislead your readers. I think readers are perfectly capable of evaluating what they are reading and the relevant source material. Take for example the NPR article you referring to: > [@NPR](#): > > In the middle of her remarks, she made a big claim: She said that gun-makers and sellers are “the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior.” We decided to see what she was talking about — and whether she’s right. > > Let’s Break It Down. > > **The Claim:** > > “So far as I know, the gun industry and gun sellers are the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior. Nobody else is given that immunity. And that just illustrates the extremism that has taken over this debate.” > > **The Big Question:** > > Is Clinton right that the gun industry enjoys legal protections that other industries don’t? > > **The Long Answer:** > > Clinton is wrong that gun companies have zero liability for their goods, but they do have special legal protections against liability that very few other industries enjoy. > > To see what she’s getting at, you have to back up 10 years. Clinton is talking about a 2005 law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA — a law she wants to repeal as part of her gun control proposals. “Totally free of liability” was the claim at this particular venue that Clinton was speaking at. This is similar to the “absolute immunity” phrasing she used in multiple other occasions, but this one doesn’t have the fairytale land tap dancing excuse you seem to be clinging to - that she was using her phrase as you would for diplomats. This claim by Clinton is also false, as the NPR article notes. NPR construes her claim of “totally free of liability” as “zero liability”. Are you going to accuse them of taking things out of context? Do you want to attempt to explain away “totally free from liability” as well? Because that claim is false but I’d love to see you try and twist it to fit your fanciful narrative. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > WAPO characterizes the phrase “Absolute immunity” as an exaggeration: they say, “Still, Clinton has a point. The law provides a unique federal legal shield that most consumer goods manufacturers do not have. There are few industries that have federal liability immunity.” That’s two sources that you have mis-represented. Your accusations of misrepresenting sources are baseless. To actually have merit you’d have to demonstrate the source says something contrary to what I assert it says. I’m using the three linked sources in post #78 to primarily disprove your ‘like a diplomat’ concoction and simultaneously show that multiple other sources evaluated Clinton’s claim and concluded she was mistaken. Which they do. So the source says she’s exaggerating, then tries to make her point for her. That’s wonderful and all, and if she said that gun manufacturers have greater protection than other industries then I would have no objection. But that’s not what she said so the ‘but she has a point…’ refrain trying to save her remark from being transparently false falls flat. But this is a good segue to bring up the other mistake that Clinton makes, and it’s highlighted in the WaPo article. This was what they quoted: > [@WaPo](#): > > “No other industry in America has absolute immunity [like gun manufacturers].” > -Clinton > > Actually, gun manufacturers don’t have absolute immunity. Clinton exaggerates with this talking point. I’ve focused on the “absolute immunity” part because that’s the most obvious lie. But her claim that “no other industry” is also misleading - the article notes that vaccine manufacturers also enjoy a type of immunity - though there is a compensation scheme created in place of holding manufacturers liable. This isn’t as much a lie but a convenient omission since it takes away from her narrative. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Er, didn’t you give an example of a gun _seller_ being sued? Because that’s not especially relevant. The NAACP wanted gun manufacturers not to distribute their weapons via sellers known to sell repeatedly to criminals. Smith and Wesson had no problem cleaning up their distribution channels. They received an NRA boycott in response. The 2005 law was specifically geared to avoid the absolute immunity from being sued for distributing your manufactured items via a corrupt seller, right? You have still failed to define “faulty distribution channels”. \*\*Can you do so? \*\* Right now it’s made up term you can twist to fit whatever scenario you create. And here’s where your failure to read the actual law in question comes into play again. From the text of the [PLCAA](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397/text): > [@](#): > > (5) QUALIFIED CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION- > > (A) IN GENERAL- The term `qualified civil liability action’ means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include– > … > (iii) an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including– > … > (II) any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code; If a manufacturer sells or disposes of a firearm to a buyer who is prohibited, they can be held liable and do not enjoy the protections of the PLCAA. I still can’t tell if that’s what you’re actually talking about though, because you’re using made up terms without defining them. Is that on purpose? > [@](#): > > As for unusual definition, I already linked to the wikipedia article on “[Absolute immunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity)”. The WAPO/Trib article thinks it’s an exaggeration and I don’t find that position unreasonable. It’s yours that is off the wall and misleading to our fine readership. They deserve better. Well, most of them do. Usually. Can you find a single reputable source that thinks Clinton’s claims about “absolute immunity” are accurate, or who’ve adopted your absurd contention that she’s using the term “absolute immunity” as you would for diplomats? Because your construction doesn’t just stretch credulity, it wraps it around a building and then takes a shit all over it. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424/84 "2016-04-28T05:02:02Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Your accusations of misrepresenting sources are baseless. Oh? > [@Bone](#): > > To actually have merit you’d have to demonstrate the source says something contrary to what I assert it says. I’m using the three linked sources in post #78 to primarily disprove your ‘like a diplomat’ concoction and simultaneously show that multiple other sources evaluated Clinton’s claim and concluded she was mistaken. Well, let’s see what you said: > [@Bone](#): > > Your contention is that when Clinton says "absolute immunity - she really means something different than absolute immunity, like for diplomats? That rhetorical tapdancing must be tiring. None of the people who fact check Clinton subscribe to this novel idea. > [Washington Post:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/06/fact-checking-the-seventh-democratic-debate/) > [NPR:](http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior) It seems to me that you claimed that the NPR piece assesses Clinton’s usage of the term [absolute immunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity). It does not. In fact basically only one of your article do (if we consider the WAPO and Trib pieces to be basically the same). And that one calls it an exageration. I’ve linked to Clinton’s remarks in full upthread. She refers to “the absolute immunity”, pretty clearly referring to what she said earlier. I’m sorry if you can’t handle common English usage of a somewhat technical term, but that’s no reason to call someone a liar, while saying that you are backing up that claim with references that don’t even use the same phrase. We both know that the gun manufacturing industry has been treated as special for many years, pre-dating that 2005 act. There’s no reason to get butthurt about calling it absolute immmunity. None. There’s certainly no reason to point fingers and accuse others of lying. I’d hit your other points, but honestly I think that after thousands of words on the subject less is very much more. ---
**Author:** ![ATLHawk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/94ad74/32.png) [@ATLHawk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ATLHawk)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424/85 "2016-04-28T11:54:34Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > You should vote for Clinton. She’s not going to go after your guns any more than Obama did. Just off the top of my head, I can remember that Obama: [ul] [li]will/would work with the EPA to ban lead ammunition.[/li][li]will/would confiscate all guns.[/li][li]will/would prepare “FEMA Corps” to suppress any uprising from the populous in reaction to the above.[/li][/ul] Now this is either part of a grand scheme to inundate me, and others, with moon bat conspiracies to the point that I stop listening OR it’s just groups concocting “issues” for any number of agendas. I went with the latter and cancelled my lifetime membership with the NRA. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424/86 "2016-04-28T15:00:49Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > It seems to me that you claimed that the NPR piece assesses Clinton’s usage of the term [absolute immunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity). It does not. Your reading comprehension skills have failed you. As I stated in the previous post #83, the NPR cite was offered to disprove your ‘like a diplomat’ concoction. There’s a hint in the part you quoted (my bold) > [@Bone](#): > > Your contention is that when Clinton says "absolute immunity - she really means something different than absolute immunity,\*\* like for diplomats? \*\*That rhetorical tapdancing must be tiring. None of the people who fact check Clinton subscribe to **this novel idea.** I’ll walk you through it since you’ve failed to grasp it twice now. The first sentence is a question, the key part is “like diplomats?” The third sentence is a statement - that being that “none of the people who fact check Clinton subscribe to this novel idea.” That novel idea is…wait for it…your ‘like a diplomat’ bullshit. In other words, the cite is used to show an absence of your claim. In fact, I asked you about this in the last post too: > [@Bone](#): > > Can you find a single reputable source that thinks Clinton’s claims about “absolute immunity” are accurate, or who’ve adopted your absurd contention that she’s using the term “absolute immunity” as you would for diplomats? Because your construction doesn’t just stretch credulity, it wraps it around a building and then takes a shit all over it. Can you? > [@](#): > > In fact basically **only one** of your article do (if we consider the WAPO and Trib pieces to be basically the same). And that one calls it an exageration. (my bold) What do you think “totally free of liability” means? That claim is false too. Are you trying to say that that claim is some wholly different one that her multiple other iterations of “absolute immunity”? Because that’s some serious handwaving. Can you find any cite that evaluates Clinton’s claims as accurate? > [@](#): > > I’ve linked to Clinton’s remarks in full upthread. She refers to “the absolute immunity”, pretty clearly referring to what she said earlier. I’m sorry if you can’t handle common English usage of a somewhat technical term, but that’s no reason to call someone a liar, while saying that you are backing up that claim with references that don’t even use the same phrase. And this is what you seem to want to cling to. That your interpretation, shared by no one, is correct, and that all who have evaluated Clinton’s claims are incorrect or are leaving out the gem that you have discovered. Brilliant! But realize this interpretation was fabricated by you only after you realized your error, that Clinton didn’t in fact muff her remarks about “absolute immunity”. First you tried to claim this was like an off the cuff remark that she made unintentionally. After I showed she used this phrasing repeatedly on many occasions, only then did you switch to this absurd notion that she’s actually referring to something like diplomatic immunity. > [@](#): > > We both know that the gun manufacturing industry has been treated as special for many years, pre-dating that 2005 act. There’s no reason to get butthurt about calling it absolute immmunity. None. There’s certainly no reason to point fingers and accuse others of lying. Except of course, when others are lying. Like Clinton. Because she is a liar. Using phrases in an effort to deceive is not new for gun control folks (see Surgarman and “assault weapons”). They do this to create confusion and increase support for their ideas where otherwise there would be less. Much like the result when people are mistaken for several years about product liability and guns blowing up - like you. But you wont make that mistake again - is two times enough? > [@](#): > > I’d hit your other points, but honestly I think that after thousands of words on the subject less is very much more. This is probably better for you since you keep avoiding addressing issues. What was it you said earlier? (my bold): > [@handsomeharry has been banned](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/handsomeharry-has-been-banned/753236/130): > > **There are all manner of trolling devices,** most but not all from the extreme ends of various political spectra. The linking concept is bringing a blender to the art of shit-stirring. Saying you are one extremist or another, insulting others for using typical definitions of your terms, r **efusing to define your own terms** and blaming murder victims for their own deaths without explanation sounds a lot like shit stirring to me. Are you refusing to define your own terms, or was this an oversight? Still no definition for “faulty distribution channels”. I mentioned this in post 78 and 83. Then there’s all of these too: > [@Bone](#): > > But I notice this pattern from you - you accuse me of doing something…taking things out of context, only quoting two words, or misrepresenting sources. All of these claims are wrong of course, and when I point it out you ignore it. **Why is that?** You said I was only quoting two words and questioned my honor - but of course I quote entire sentences or paragraphs so your claim is false and you ignore it. You said I took things out of context, and then you used the exact same quote I used and claimed it was in context so this claim was ridiculous and you ignore it. And now you say I’m misleading by attacking a claim I never made. It’s bizarre. \*\* So let’s do a quick tally of all the things you’ve gotten wrong in this thread:\*\* [ol] [li]You said a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand - false[/li][li]You said Clinton “muffed” a response saying “absolute immunity” - false[/li][li]You said manufacturers could make pistol grips out of plastic explosives and that would be ok until somebody actually suffers harm from them - false[/li][li]You said I took Clinton’s remarks out of context by quoting two words - false[/li][li]You said I took things out of context in general - false, you quoted the exact same thing[/li][li]You said the “Charleston Loophole” is somehow related to the PLCAA - false[/li][li]You said I made the claim that linked sourced called Clinton a liar - false[/li][/ol] I don’t know about you but I’d be embarrassed if I made so many errors. Maybe it’s better you adopt the ‘less is more’ approach now. The more you make claims the more your tally of errors rises. **And here’s the questions you’ve avoided, maybe on purpose, maybe not:** [ol] [li]do you think that the PLCAA gives absolute immunity?[/li][li]Can you find a single reputable source that thinks Clinton’s claims about “absolute immunity” are accurate, or who’ve adopted your absurd contention that she’s using the term “absolute immunity” as you would for diplomats?[/li][li]Can you define your use of the term you created: “faulty distribution channel”?[/li][/ol] So it’s clear Clinton repeatedly used the term “absolute immunity”. She also used the phrase “totally free of liability”. Both of these are false. Clinton knows or should know these are false. I can’t read her mind, but I think she does this with the intent to deceive. Nothing else to call intentional false statements with the intent to deceive except lies - ergo Clinton is a liar. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424/87 "2016-05-01T17:03:38Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Your reading comprehension skills have failed you. As I stated in the previous post #83, the NPR cite was offered to disprove your ‘like a diplomat’ concoction. There’s a hint in the part you quoted (my bold) > > I’ll walk you through it since you’ve failed to grasp it twice now. The first sentence is a question, the key part is “like diplomats?” The third sentence is a statement - that being that “none of the people who fact check Clinton subscribe to this novel idea.” That novel idea is…wait for it…your ‘like a diplomat’ bullshit. In other words, the cite is used to show an absence of your claim. In fact, I asked you about this in the last post too: > Can you? And as I’ve noted multiple times, the NPR piece doesn’t address the phrase “absolute immunity”. That phrase appears nowhere in the article. The phrase happens to have originated within the context of diplomacy. But it’s simple English. Your problem isn’t with Clinton. Your problem is with the English language. [Absolute immunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity) is understood to be absolute only within a restricted scope. Otherwise the term would have hardly any application. It’s hard to imagine any person or institution with absolute immunity from _everything_. Further conversation has become pointless. If you use a piece of journalism to as you claim, “…disprove your ‘like a diplomat’ concoction”, when it in fact doesn’t even contain the phrase “Absolute immunity” at all - then double down on your claim, well anybody can see what you’re doing. To be clear. “Absolute immunity” is an _English_ term: I’ve linked to it in wikipedia. The WAPO piece says Clinton exaggerated, during the factcheck after a Sanders/Clinton debate. No problem, that’s what fact checkers do. They critiqued both sides. And they noted that Clinton’s remarks were not wildly off base. I’m not going to go on about these so-called errors of mine, because your post clearly originates from another dimension. It consistently misrepresents journalism and refuses to accept common Enlish usage of your key term after multiple citations are provided. The spine of your argument is empty. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2016, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424/88 "2016-05-01T20:44:37Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > And as I’ve noted multiple times, the NPR piece doesn’t address the phrase “absolute immunity”. That phrase appears nowhere in the article. The phrase happens to have originated within the context of diplomacy. But it’s simple English. For the third time - I never asserted that the NPR piece addressed the phrase “absolute immunity”. You came up with that strawman on your own. It was one cite among many that looked at Clinton’s claims - that one in particular was “totally free of liability”. In what way is that meaningfully different? Any way you assess it, that claim as identified in the NPR article is also a lie. The point was that no one has engaged in your “like a diplomat” absurdity. Still can’t find a cite where anyone assesses Clinton’s claims this way right? Are you still looking? > [@](#): > > I’m not going to go on about these so-called errors of mine, because your post clearly originates from another dimension. It consistently misrepresents journalism and refuses to accept common Enlish usage of your key term after multiple citations are provided. The spine of your argument is empty. Cool story, bro. Cutting your losses is probably better for you. Refusing to acknowledge errors, refusing to answer questions, refusing to define terms (what did you say about folks who do this again?). That’s what you’ve accomplished here. I’m not sure if that’s a preferable track record than Clinton being a liar. Kind of a toss up. The thing is, if you actually wanted a substantive discussion about the merits of the PLCAA that could be done, but only if you actually understand it. Refusing to read it and clinging to the lies that Clinton tells about it puts you at a distinct disadvantage to reality. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424/89 "2016-05-02T14:12:22Z")
> [@](#): > > What is a fiscally conservative, socially liberal, hetero, gun owning, Athiest with anarchi-liberterian tendencies to do? A difficult combination and you’re not likely to find someone who completely matches your philosophy. You might prioritize your issues and voter for the person who matches those the best. > [@](#): > > I’m for small government, the smaller the better, microscopically small if possible Can’t help you there. Note that there has never been and never will be a libertarian government in the world. Along with the economic benefits of living in a modern industrial nation comes with it the necessity of government infrastructure, services, safety net, and regulation. You might check with the Somali government for their immigration policies if that doesn’t work for you. > [@](#): > > I hate governmental intrusion into private lives, leave The People alone For the most part, I’m with you. Note that one party wants to make carrying a pregnancy to term mandatory. > [@](#): > > I don’t care what consenting adults do as long as no one is hurt I think except for Ted Cruz, who wanted to ban dildos, most of us are with you. > [@](#): > > Religion has no place in politics, and ideally I’d love it if it simply vanished, of course, if it did, humanity would find another way to be crappy to each other, still, it has a lot of hardships to answer for and we’d be better off if it didn’t exist at all I suggest the Democrats are friendlier to the concept of the separation of church and state. > [@](#): > > I own guns, yes, plural, some of them the scary-looking “assault” weapons that politicians, anti gunners and the like fear and want to ban, none of these guns will ever be used in anger, against another human, and I hope I never need to use them defensively. That said, they are _NO_ threat to you, and you would never even know I possess them (unless you saw/heard me plinking in my backyard range, or putting down a predator/varmint threatening my livestock or garden), don’t like my guns? Tough crap, sucks to be you then, I’m not giving them up, and unless you make the voluntary bad decision to enter my house uninvited, you’ll never have to interact with them. I disagree with every word you wrote, but I don’t view it as important. Right now the political climate is not conducive to any new gun control legislation regardless of who is president, so I believe these concerns are irrelevant. > [@](#): > > I also believe that there _are_ some people who are not responsible enough for firearm ownership, I have no problem with keeping them from owning guns, training is a good thing, but shouldn’t be a requirement of ownership, waiting periods, bans, mag restrictions all are ineffective and infringements on law abiding gun owners. We agree that some should not own guns, I would expand that to all. I’m unconcerned with infringing on gun owners. Again, the point is quite moot in this political climate. > [@](#): > > Use a gun in the commission of a crime? Automatic max sentence, no parole, if the criminal kills the victim(s) automatic death sentence for the criminal, don’t want to suffer this fate? Then DONT COMMIT THE CRIME!, simple really. Automatic sentences I believe are counterproductive, our prisons have too many people as it is. I’m opposed to capital punishment so I disagree with the last point. More importantly, I don’t know of any statements by any candidates on any of these points, so it’s a crapshoot from your point of view. > [@](#): > > Illegal immigration (no, not “undocumented immigrants”) is a big problem, I have no problem with LEGAL immigration, the more the merrier, it makes us stronger as a nation, but only if it’s done legally, as for those already here illegally, ship 'em back home, not my fault they broke immigration law to get here illegally. No, it isn’t. It’s just codespeak for “OMG Scary Brown People!!! They want our jobs, they want our white women!!! Run for the hills!!! Aieeeeeeeee!!!” Take a deep breath and ask yourself what you’re really afraid of. You’re being played by those who want to exploit your fears for political gain. It simply isn’t a major problem, except for those hiding in the shadows. > [@](#): > > axes suck, period, yes they are a necessary evil, but need to be implemented fairly > Health care is important, but the government has no right to force people to buy something they may not want or can’t afford, and penalizing for noncompliance makes even less sense, if someone can’t afford “obamacare”, charging them even more money (something they don’t have enough of in the first place) makes absolutely no sense. With you on the first sentence, not with the rest. All of us use health care. All of us need to pay for it. The most cost efficient way for us all to do it is for all of us to buy insurance. It isn’t that people can’t afford it, they can’t afford not to buy it. > [@](#): > > Sanders- under his tax plan, I would end up paying almost $3,000 more a year, screw that, he’s out, pity, otherwise he seems to be the lesser of the Democratic evils. Not sure where you got the $3000 figure. But let’s be generous and suppose it’s right. Seems like a bargain to get free higher education. Scandanavians pay a lot more taxes than Americans but they get so much more. We’d do well to follow their lead. > [@](#): > > Hillary-,no FRAKKING way in hell I’d ever vote for this evil,myself centered nannying gun grabbing female canine, her record on the second amendment, gun owners, the NRA (no, I’m not an NRA member, maybe I should join though if it pisses hillary off that much…) insures that, she’s the only candidate I truly HATE. If I had to choose between her and Cthulu? Cthulu would get my vote. If your main concern is your fictitious “right” to own guns, then you’re stuck voting Republican. Please note that there isn’t sufficient political clout behind the noble gun-banning faction. Do you honestly think the ammosexual Republicans in Congress would get behind Hillary’s alleged gun-banning tendencies? Seems like a waste to base your vote on something that isn’t going to happen until we’re all dead and buried. > [@](#): > > Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio - too bloody religious for me, all their god bothering drivel annoys me, and makes me think their critical thinking skills are terminally damaged, not someone we want in charge of the nuclear football Can’t fault you here. > [@](#): > > Donald Trump - are you kidding me? I have no idea how this deluded P.T. Barnum ringmaster has gotten this far (I guess there truly _IS_ a sucker born every minute), not only is he spouting hateful bile everywhere, claiming his “best plans ever” will work (notice he has never given any real details) plans to force a sovereign nation we share a border with to build a wall and pay for it, I can’t get past the feeling that he’s actually not even serious about running for president, that this is all some kind of elaborate prank, he’s trying to “mega-epic-Übertroll” the voting public just so he can lean back in his ivory tower, point down and laugh at us… > “I never even intended to run for president, I just wanted to see how far I could string you along, you are all so stupid, as if I would want to rule you, you bunch of morons, now, go back to your sad, tiny, pathetic lives, I’ve got a bunch of money to count and then roll around in completely naked, because you see, the best thing about me is I’m very, very rich…” Yes, Trump sucks donkey dick. We can’t allow him to be president. Thus the only sane alternative is Hillary, which you could see if you were capable of looking past the guns. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424/90 "2016-05-03T05:11:04Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > For the third time - I never asserted that the NPR piece addressed the phrase “absolute immunity”. You came up with that strawman on your own. No. I got it from here. > [@Bone](#): > > Your contention is that when Clinton says "absolute immunity - she really means something different than absolute immunity, like for diplomats? That rhetorical tapdancing must be tiring. None of the people who fact check Clinton subscribe to this novel idea. > [Washington Post:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/06/fact-checking-the-seventh-democratic-debate/) > [NPR:](http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/06/446348616/fact-check-are-gun-makers-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior) Your claim. Your words. You listed NPR saying, “None of the people who fact check Clinton subscribe to this novel idea” - then followed with a quote that didn’t address the concept at all. Highly misleading. Far less accurate than the statements of Senator Clinton. And it’s central to your accusations of dishonesty by the former Secretary of State. You are not doing your side any favors. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2016, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424/91 "2016-05-03T13:17:52Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Your claim. Your words. You listed NPR saying, “None of the people who fact check Clinton subscribe to this novel idea” - then followed with a quote that didn’t address the concept at all. Highly misleading. Far less accurate than the statements of Senator Clinton. And it’s central to your accusations of dishonesty by the former Secretary of State. You are not doing your side any favors. Oh goodie, you’re back. I had thought that you ran away given you said further conversation was pointless. I see that the amount of content you offer has decreased which is probably better for you since, as I said, the more you write, the more you make mistakes. Here’s another: > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Your problem isn’t with Clinton. Your problem is with the English language. [Absolute immunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity) is understood to be absolute only within a restricted scope. Otherwise the term would have hardly any application. It’s hard to imagine any person or institution with absolute immunity from _everything_. I forgot to address this. Have you heard of the concept of Sovereign Immunity? We have it in the US. The federal government enjoys sovereign immunity, and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. That’s immunity from everything. Now you’ve learned something! Your criticism of the inclusion of the link from NPR is nonsense. It rests on two things: 1) the idea that the claim of absolute immunity is wholly different than the claim that gun manufacturers are “totally free from liability”. And 2) the idea that your equivocation to diplomatic immunity is plausible. **So is it your contention that the claim of absolute immunity is wholly different than the claim that gun manufacturers are “totally free from liability”?** If you want to treat these separately I can count these as two separate Clinton lies. Because the latter is also a false statement by Clinton, and knowingly so. Which, similar to her other false statements, wait for it…makes Clinton a liar. And ultimately, none of my arguments are impacted in any way by the exclusion of the NPR article. The point remains that no one who looks at Clinton’s statements about absolute immunity (and to humor you) or her statements about manufacturers being “totally free from liability” - no one who has analyzed these subscribes to your concoction about diplomatic immunity. **So let’s recap the errors since now I can add another one:** [ol] [li]You said a gun manufacturer is not liable if their product blows up in a customer’s hand - false[/li][li]You said Clinton “muffed” a response saying “absolute immunity” - false[/li][li]You said manufacturers could make pistol grips out of plastic explosives and that would be ok until somebody actually suffers harm from them - false[/li][li]You said I took Clinton’s remarks out of context by quoting two words - false[/li][li]You said I took things out of context in general - false, you quoted the exact same thing[/li][li]You said the “Charleston Loophole” is somehow related to the PLCAA - false[/li][li]You said I made the claim that linked sourced called Clinton a liar - false[/li][li]You said it was hard to imagine any person or institution with absolute immunity from _everything_ - not exactly false, but deeply ignorant. The US is an institution with Sovereign Immunity from everything.[/li][/ol] **And here’s the questions you’ve avoided, maybe on purpose, maybe not:** [ol] [li]do you think that the PLCAA gives absolute immunity?[/li][li]Can you find a single reputable source that thinks Clinton’s claims about “absolute immunity” are accurate, or who’ve adopted your absurd contention that she’s using the term “absolute immunity” as you would for diplomats?[/li][li]Can you define your use of the term you created: “faulty distribution channel”?[/li][/ol] To give you a chance to answer the new question, I left it off the list. I bolded it above for you. But as to the others, why are you refusing to answer direct questions? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-see-no-one-worth-voting-for/752424.md?page=4)