Sure, it was on the menu, but three servers and the manager told you they were out of lobster and you didn’t listen.
Proving what we already hopefully all know quite well about Stein voters.
You’re wrong.
I don’t think you know very many pro-gun people.
There is a real sense among a lot of Democratic gun owning union members in rust belt states that the Democratic establishment is moving away from them.
I know at least a few people who have never voted before who voted for Trump mostly because of her attack on gun rights during the primary.
Because it allows them to shift blame away from Hillary.
How did she do in those demographics compared to Obama?
That’s probably true of every Republican candidate since Reagan.
Well, I pulled the lever for Johnson - but if I was in a state that mattered, I may have voted for Trump. I could weather all of the bad stuff that I disagree with Clinton on, except for her position on guns. Gun people vote in blocks, and every enthusiast board I know pushed for Trump pretty hard. I’d take pleasure if I knew that Clinton’s gun positions cost her the election.
ETA: I know some gun rights groups are taking that credit, but I think that’s premature.
Last week it was the dumb-assed uneducated white folks, this week it’s the Greens, or maybe the NRA … Next week the gays?
It’s hard to believe anyone really thinks ‘ZERO’ people are Democrat leaning but vote against them on gun control. I know some people who say they are, I’ve seen plenty of people on gun collector (not guns rights per se) forums who say they are. I doubt they are all lying. It’s more likely IMO someone saying such voters don’t exist is just having trouble getting out of their bubble.
I’d actually say the same even for the assumption Jill Stein took all or nearly all her votes from Hillary. In MI with ~5 times as many Stein votes as Trump margin it seems safe to say Clinton would have won it w/o Stein, all else equal. But PA where Stein votes only slightly exceeded Trump margin not as clear IMO. The thinking of some voters is hard for strongly left/right types to get their heads around IME. Though again, a general leftish minor party candidate (Stein) is obviously going to hurt the Democrats net. And a generally rightish one (Perot) is going to hurt the GOP net. A lot of people here seemed to assume Johnson was siphoning net votes from Trump, there were threads based on that assumption, but it’s not mentioned much now (it was always questionable, though not proven Trump wasn’t hurt at all in those 3 key states by Johnson).
Well god forbid your fetish be infringed on in even the slightest way. Fuck the gays, fuck the pregnant rape victims, fuck the victims of police violence, fuck the transgender people who just want acceptance, fuck the newspapers who might want to cover the president in a less-than-positive way, fuck literally any other criterion, as long as you’re allowed to buy literally any gun you want under literally any conditions, and the candidate who made vague, hand-wavey gestures towards maybe appointing supreme court justices who don’t think the 2nd amendment should mean guns should be easier to buy and use than cars gets beat, you’re happy!
Single issue voters bug me enough when the single issue is literally “I want to end the mass murder of babies”. Even then it’s foolhardy to pretend that that one issue trumps everything else. But when the single issue is “I really like guns” (or, alternatively, “I have insane fantasies about using my semi-automatic to overthrow a tyrannical government armed with F-35s and Tanks and everyone else needs to indulge those fantasies, regardless the cost”), and you’re willing to overlook everything else for the sake of that… What should I take away from that?
Well . . . so what??
Obama wouldn’t have gotten elected without the African-American vote.
And Clinton (I) wouldn’t have gotten elected without the same lower middle class voters that you are disparaging now.
Votes are votes, and although the east coast elites (of which I guess I’m technically a part of) don’t want the middle 90% of the nation to have their votes count, they do.
As I told my wife (which is no way was an original thought of mine) that when the election was over, one of the parties was going to be pissed that they trotted out a candidate that was somehow less appealing than the other knucklehead and shame on them for doing it.
Congratulations.
Not to this extent: GOP Presidential candidates typically have been winning white evangelicals by margins like 65-30, IIRC.
Please identify where I disparage lower middle class voters.
What attack on gun rights?
IIRC, her rather mild desires for gun control are along the lines of that you should have a background check when you buy a gun, even if you’re not buying it at a gun store.
I’m sure she has some other positions on guns that may be even more radical. But educate me, please.
Who is saying that?
If one was going to say Hillary lost those three states because of the Stein vote - an argument I hope I made it clear that I’m not making - it would be because the Stein voters aren’t somewhere in between Trump and Clinton, but rather far enough off to her left that they’d almost surely not be Trump voters: their problem with Hillary is the same as that of Nader voters with Gore in 2000: they regarded the Dem as being too similar to the Republican.
The same is surely not true of the libertarian candidate in any year, since libertarianism is basically Paul Ryan + marijuana.
She claimed that the Heller case, which only prevents an outright ban like what DC or Chicago had, was wrong, and wanted to overturn it. That means that she clearly wanted to pick supreme court justices who would support gun bans in the Us. She also characterized DC’s complete ban on private citizens using guns for self defense as “common sense” gun control aimed at “protecting toddlers”.
“Clinton believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe, like safe storage laws to prevent toddlers from accessing guns,” Maya Harris, a policy adviser to Clinton, said in an e-mailed statement. “In overturning Washington D.C.'s safe storage law, Clinton worries that Heller may open the door to overturning thoughtful, common sense safety measures in the future.”
No, she explicitly a complete ban on ordinary people carrying firearms (politicians and rich people’s bodyguards excluded, of course), including in their homes, and objected to the supreme court finding that such bans are not constitutional. I’m not sure why gun control advocates and Hillary supporters deny basic reality so often, but she clearly and explicitly was in favor of DC’s pre-Heller gun laws, which amount to a ban on private citizens having guns for self defense.
That’s not true. You probably already know that, but if, on some chance, you actually believe what you wrote here, I’d invite you to call the ATF and ask them. Or go into a gun store and ask them if you can buy a new full-auto M-16.
What Hillary said, according to you, is that she believes Heller went too far in ruling against state-level safety laws. But you say that means she wants gun bans.
Maybe not zero, but a very insignificant number.
The NRA is in the GOPs pocket and has been for decades.
Yep. Excellent point.