# Why People Vote for Trump - help! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 5, 2016, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027 "2016-05-05T21:59:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2016, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/81 "2016-05-23T10:55:48Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > And why do you think Clinton and Sanders are likely to have significantly different agendas on gun policy? Why do you think Sanders’ agenda is the one you’d prefer? Traditionally, Sanders has been more pro-gun rights than Hillary. The NRA helped get him elected in 1990 in exchange for promising to oppose a waiting period on gun purchases. (His opponent, the Republican Pete Smith, had alienated the NRA after he cosponsored an assault weapon ban). Since then, even though he hasn’t voted lockstep with the NRA or anything, he’s tended to be more opposed to gun control than she has been. ---
**Author:** ![Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pearl_Clutching_Provocateur)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2016, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/82 "2016-05-23T13:32:29Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > You mean, like the [POWER initiative to help coal workers transition to “green-energy” jobs](https://www.greenbiz.com/article/new-initiative-help-coal-workers-transition-clean-economy-jobs)? > > The Obama administration has done more to help coal miners than the relentlessly obstructionist Republican opposition has, certainly. Do you read your own citations? Liberals and Progressives hire other liberals and progressives to retrain unemployed coal miners to do what? Write algorithms? Go to beauty school? This article is a joke. There are no jobs awaiting them when they get retrained whatever that means. Someone has to start a business. 11 million dollars? They spend far more on Syrian refugees. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2016, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/83 "2016-05-23T13:38:24Z")
> [@Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](#): > > 11 million dollars? They spend far more on Syrian refugees. :dubious: Hey, I wish the Republican Congress weren’t so resolutely opposed to giving any support to Administration initiatives for spending money on domestic infrastructure, too. But I’m not falling for the conservative bait-and-switch of doing everything in their power to undermine and block the Administration’s policies and then sneering at the Administration for not accomplishing anything. After all, it’s not as though the Republicans have any alternatives of their own to propose, beyond lowering taxes on the wealthy and gutting regulations and asserting that that will in some unspecified fashion be good for American jobs. It’s no wonder that even conservative working-class people despise their own party’s “establishment” almost as much as they despise the so-called “left”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2016, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/84 "2016-05-23T14:20:14Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Why I will vote for Trump if it comes to that: > > 1. Anyone but Hillary. Any_thing_ but Hillary. > 2. We can always hope he’ll be assassinated and his VP will be halfway sane and competent. > [@Kimstu](#): > > 😕 Whereas we could elect Clinton and get a President that’s at **least** halfway sane and competent right from the get-go. It really seems like a pretty easy choice. > > I understand many people not liking Clinton, but I simply cannot understand how anyone could objectively think that Trump would be a **better** or even marginally less bad POTUS than she would be. > [@Bone](#): > > I’m in CA so my vote really doesn’t matter, but I would rather have the office vacant than have Clinton be president. I’m not sure if I would rather have Trump than Clinton. I would rather have Sanders than Clinton. > [@Kimstu](#): > > You’re right that “objectively” is the wrong word to use for support of Presidential candidates, but I do not understand how you can even _subjectively_ arrive at the position > > Sanders \> nobody \> Trump \>? Clinton. > > I mean, I can see being strongly opposed to Clinton because one thinks, subjectively, that she’s too left-wing, but in that case I can’t see why on earth you would consider Sanders a better choice. What kind of criteria are going into the construction of that extremely bizarre preference hierarchy? The reason is simple: The RW has a 23-year investment in Hillary-hate. Even when she was FLOTUS there was a cottage industry devoted to demonizing her. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2016, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/85 "2016-05-23T14:40:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The reason is simple: The RW has a 23-year investment in Hillary-hate. Even when she was FLOTUS there was a cottage industry devoted to demonizing her. IKR? I mean, look at this: > [@Captain Amazing](#): > > [Sanders has] tended to be more opposed to gun control than she has been. Of course, Clinton has been in no way extremist or radical in favor of gun control, and she’s not actually going to confiscate guns or repeal the Second Amendment, any more than Obama has. So, on the basis of essentially a minor difference in policy position that is almost certainly going to make exactly zero practical difference in the actual experience of gun owners, we’ve got conservative voters like **Bone** declaring with a straight face that they have made up their minds that they would _literally prefer to have no POTUS at all than Clinton_, although they’d prefer the far more anti-conservative Sanders. I mean, that’s not rationally explicable, except on the hypothesis that some people have just got this kind of logic-overriding _“anything but Hillary”_ mantra embedded in their brains. ---
**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 23, 2016, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/86 "2016-05-23T16:06:40Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Of course, Clinton has been in no way extremist or radical in favor of gun control, and she’s not actually going to confiscate guns or repeal the Second Amendment, any more than Obama has. Again, you overstate your conclusion. Whether Clinton’s positions have been extremist or radical are subjective. And the idea that confiscation or repeal of the 2nd are the only things to be concerned about is shortsighted. > [@](#): > > So, on the basis of essentially a minor difference in policy position that is almost certainly going to make exactly zero practical difference in the actual experience of gun owners, we’ve got conservative voters like **Bone** declaring with a straight face that they have made up their minds that they would _literally prefer to have no POTUS at all than Clinton_, although they’d prefer the far more anti-conservative Sanders. [This is what Sanders has said:](http://thehill.com/regulation/272029-nra-tweets-support-for-bernie-sanders) > [@Sanders](#): > > "If that is the point, I have to tell you I disagree. I disagree because you hold people — in terms of this liability thing, where you hold manufacturers’ liable is if they understand that they’re selling guns into an area that — it’s getting into the hands of criminals, of course, they should be held liable. > > "But if they are selling a product to a person who buys it legally, what you’re really talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America. I don’t agree with that.” So, taken at face value, is ending gun manufacturing in America a _minor difference in policy_? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2016, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/87 "2016-05-23T16:20:37Z")
I’m voting for Hillary for any number of policy reasons, but also because getting her elected will cause **Bone** and **Lumpy** and so many others around the country to absolutely shit their collective pants. Her supposed plan to end gun manufacturing in this country is just gravy. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![T.M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ad7895/32.png) [@T.M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.M)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2016, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/88 "2016-05-23T16:47:42Z")
Cards on the Table I do not like Trump ( in the UK a trump is a fart) so he is well named rather like are PM Camoron. People in Europe and America have lost faith in politics they have endured the left and the centre and they feel ripped off, so hence the drift to the right which is peopled mainly by the working class compared with the lefts Champaign socialist’s and the centre’s support of big business and strong dislike of the poor. I believe that if the UK does not leave the EU we are going to see a further drift to the right with another referendum in a couple of years ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2016, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/89 "2016-05-23T17:18:46Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So, taken at face value, is ending gun manufacturing in America a _minor difference in policy_? But what Clinton’s proposing **isn’t** anywhere near tantamount to “ending gun manufacturing in America”. Gun manufacturers hollering that it is are like auto manufacturers hollering that increasing fuel economy standards will drive the US auto industry into bankruptcy. Guess what: it didn’t, and it won’t. Don’t get me wrong, **I’m a Sanders supporter myself** , but I don’t buy the myth that he’s some kind of legendary George Washington who cannot-tell-a-lie. Like any politician, he can misrepresent and slant facts to foster the image he wants to project, and one of the things he has misrepresented is the smallness of the **practical** difference to law-abiding gun owners between his gun-control position and Clinton’s. Sanders has attempted to spread the scare myth that if PLCAA (Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act, a very broad 2005 law that grants unprecedented levels of shielding against litigation for negligence and misconduct specifically to gun makers and sellers) is repealed, any well-intentioned dealer who sells a gun that ends up somehow being used in a crime can be smacked with crippling lawsuits. But that’s bullshit. And **Sanders himself is aware that it’s bullshit** , because his campaign [has announced that Sanders too will work to repeal PLCAA](http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/01/28/3743802/bernie-sanders-plcaa/): > [@](#): > > Sanders said [in January 2016] that he will co-sponsor legislation to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a law passed by Congress in 2005 that shields gun manufacturers from liability in lawsuits over gun violence. […] > > [Brady Campaign president Dan] Gross noted that Sanders’ apparent evolution on the issue comes after he met with two family members of gun violence victims on Wednesday. […] > > Sanders has previously argued for keeping parts of PLCAA in place, saying that the law was only intended to prevent mom-and-pop gun shop owners from liability. > “There are parts of it that made sense to me,” Sanders explained earlier this month. […] > > Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) first began circulating the Equal Access to Justice for Victims of Gun Violence Act, the bill to repeal PLCAA, earlier this month, and it was formally introduced on Wednesday. […] > > “There’s no reason why any one industry should have a unique immunity,” Schiff said. “The makers of other products don’t enjoy that. […]" Both Sanders and Clinton want votes from supporters of increased gun regulation. But neither Sanders nor Clinton is in the least interested in supporting legislation that would seriously interfere with law-abiding gun owners’ access to guns or actually destroy the US gun manufacturing industry. If you’ve been conned into believing that the differences between the Clinton and Sanders positions on guns are really significant, you might consider watching a little less Fox News until you can get your bullshit meter recalibrated. ---
**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 23, 2016, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/90 "2016-05-23T17:45:46Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But what Clinton’s proposing **isn’t** anywhere near tantamount to “ending gun manufacturing in America”. Gun manufacturers hollering that it is are like auto manufacturers hollering that increasing fuel economy standards will drive the US auto industry into bankruptcy. Guess what: it didn’t, and it won’t. I’m not arguing about the veracity of any given statement - hence the comment “taken at face value”. So with that in mind, do you think the assessment by Sanders is a minor difference in policy? I don’t accept your assessment of the likelihood of future events. > [@](#): > > Both Sanders and Clinton want votes from supporters of increased gun regulation. But neither Sanders nor Clinton is in the least interested in supporting legislation that would seriously interfere with law-abiding gun owners’ access to guns or actually destroy the US gun manufacturing industry. Focusing just on Clinton for a moment - she believes that SCOTUS was wrong on the 2nd amendment. If Heller is overturned, that would seriously interfere with law abiding gun owners’ access to guns. Do you agree? > [@](#): > > If you’ve been conned into believing that the differences between the Clinton and Sanders positions on guns are really significant, you might consider watching a little less Fox News until you can get your bullshit meter recalibrated. First - I don’t watch Fox News, don’t even have cable. 2nd, I don’t think guns are a significant issue for Sanders, and as a result he wouldn’t be as persistent or effective in shepherding more gun control. Conversely, I think Clinton actually is interested in more gun control, and that she could be more effective. 3rd, I’m not a Sanders supporter by any means, never have been. The gist of what you are saying seems to be that Sanders and Clinton are not that different when it comes to guns. Yet Hillary has been trying to use guns as an issue to differentiate between them. One of you is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2016, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/91 "2016-05-23T18:58:36Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’m not arguing about the veracity of any given statement - hence the comment “taken at face value”. So with that in mind, do you think the assessment by Sanders is a minor difference in policy? In other words, if we pretend that bullshit isn’t bullshit, then should the bullshit be taken seriously? :rolleyes: Come **on** , dude. [QUOTE=Bone] Focusing just on Clinton for a moment - [/quote] In other words, _"Ignoring the explicit statement from the Sanders campaign that Sanders **also** advocates rolling back PLCAA, and therefore his position is not substantially different from Clinton’s - "_ Yeah, no thanks, I’m not planning to ignore that aspect. [QUOTE=Bone] If Heller is overturned, that would seriously interfere with law abiding gun owners’ access to guns. Do you agree? [/quote] No. Law-abiding people had ample access to guns before _Heller_, and they’ll continue to have ample access to guns even if _Heller_ is overturned, which seems to me very unlikely no matter who becomes the next president. Gun ownership rates have been going down in the US since well before _Heller_, and **they’ve continued to decrease after _Heller_**. The _Heller_ decision didn’t lift any kind of significant practical constraint on gun ownership in this country. [QUOTE=Bone] 2nd, I don’t think guns are a significant issue for Sanders, and as a result he wouldn’t be as persistent or effective in shepherding more gun control. Conversely, I think Clinton actually is interested in more gun control, and that she could be more effective. [/quote] There I actually agree that you may have a reasonable assessment on comparatively small **relative** differences between the candidates, always bearing in mind that their **absolute** positions on gun issues are much closer than you seem to think. But what you appear to be resolutely ignoring is that **neither of them is at all likely in realistic terms to make a significant difference to gun possession by law-abiding owners in this country**. [QUOTE=Bone] The gist of what you are saying seems to be that Sanders and Clinton are not that different when it comes to guns. Yet Hillary has been trying to use guns as an issue to differentiate between them. One of you is wrong. [/QUOTE] Note also that, as you remarked earlier, Sanders too has been trying to use guns as an issue to differentiate between them. **However, based on actual policy statements from their campaigns and their legislative records, their gun-issue agendas are not actually substantially different.** Hmmm, am I wrong, or is the candidates’ political rhetoric wrong? Which is more trustworthy, a politician’s soundbite or a reasoned analysis of the details of their policies and actions? My, that’s a tough call. ---
**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 23, 2016, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/92 "2016-05-23T20:12:25Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > In other words, if we pretend that bullshit isn’t bullshit, then should the bullshit be taken seriously? > > :rolleyes: Come **on** , dude. And here I thought you actually wanted to know. You said there is no rationale way to explain differentiating between Clinton and Sanders when it comes to guns. I have stated a rationale that you seem to want to dismiss. I could see how you would think that there could be no rationale when you seem to have a truth translator for candidate statements, believing the ones you want and disregarding others. > [@](#): > > In other words, _"Ignoring the explicit statement from the Sanders campaign that Sanders **also** advocates rolling back PLCAA, and therefore his position is not substantially different from Clinton’s - "_ I think if you read Sander’s actual statements, he’s not talking about a wholesale repeal of the PLCAA. Your quote in post #89 had one actual quote from Sanders, and statements from two separate gun control groups. Sanders actually carves out gun stores. And the quote from the Time article that was linked in the Think Progress article you cited, it says this: > [@TIME](#): > > Sanders has explained that he is worried about small gun shops in Vermont being sued because one of the people they sold a gun to committed a crime with their weapon. But there were limits to his desire to protect gun stores. During the forum with Ramos on Monday night, Sanders said, “If you are a gun manufacturer who is selling guns into an area and you’re selling a whole lot of guns, and you have reason to believe that a lot of those guns are not meant for people in that area, but are being distributed to criminal elements, should you be prosecuted? Damn right.” But the thing is, gun manufacturers who do what Sanders described can already be sued under the PLCAA. What he is quoted as saying above does not require any modification to the PLCAA. > [@](#): > > No. Law-abiding people had ample access to guns before _Heller_, and they’ll continue to have ample access to guns even if _Heller_ is overturned, which seems to me very unlikely no matter who becomes the next president. Here you move the goal posts. I said that overturning Heller would inerfere with law abiding gun owners’ access to guns. You’ve switched that to “ample access”. I’m sure that you and I have a different interpretation of what “ample” means. But just to play this out, Heller and McDonald are cited as the basis in many of the ongoing litigation in CA. CA does not have any state provision for the right to arms in its constitution. Without Heller, those lawsuits would surely fail. So your disagreement that law abiding gun owners’ access to guns wouldn’t be interfered with if Heller were to be overturned is not based in reality. > [@](#): > > Hmmm, am I wrong, or is the candidates’ political rhetoric wrong? Which is more trustworthy, a politician’s soundbite or a reasoned analysis of the details of their policies and actions? My, that’s a tough call. Don’t forget the option where you and they are both wrong. Clinton voted against the PLCAA. Sanders voted for it. There’s sufficient daylight between those actions to illustrate a difference. Whether you think that’s substantial, a minor difference, or something else is up to you. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2016, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/93 "2016-05-23T21:27:53Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You said there is no rationale way to explain differentiating between Clinton and Sanders when it comes to guns. I have stated a rationale that you seem to want to dismiss. I could see how you would think that there could be no rationale when you seem to have a truth translator for candidate statements, believing the ones you want and disregarding others. 😕 But **you’re** the one who’s “believing the statements you want and disregarding others”. I.e., you choose to believe Sanders when he says he doesn’t want to repeal PLCAA and disbelieve him when he says he does. > [@Bone](#): > > And the quote from the Time article that was linked in the Think Progress article you cited, it says this: > > > [@TIME](#): > > > > Sanders has explained that he is worried about small gun shops in Vermont being sued because one of the people they sold a gun to committed a crime with their weapon. But there were limits to his desire to protect gun stores. During the forum with Ramos on Monday night, Sanders said, “If you are a gun manufacturer who is selling guns into an area and you’re selling a whole lot of guns, and you have reason to believe that a lot of those guns are not meant for people in that area, but are being distributed to criminal elements, should you be prosecuted? Damn right.” You know what else [that _Time_ article says](http://time.com/4197582/bernie-sanders-gun-manufacturers-immunity/)? > [@](#): > > In an effort to rebut criticism from Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s campaign told TIME that he will cosponsor a Democratic bill to repeal legislation granting gun manufacturers immunity from legal liability. […] > > At a town hall Monday night in Iowa, he told a CNN moderator that he voted for the NRA-supported bill because of other provisions in it. > > “It has a section which says we should not be selling ammunition which will pierce policemen’s armor and protection. I think that’s the right thing,” Sanders said. “It had a section in it which said that we want to have safety locks for children on guns. That makes sense to me.” > > But as a House member in 2003, Sanders voted for an early version of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which did not have those gun safety provisions. […] > > “Sanders actually voted for PLCAA before it included those amendments,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign […] > > But Sanders has defended his overall record on guns as well, saying that he has supported an assault weapons bans and is now pushing for tightening gun sale loopholes and mental health checks. […] > > Sanders already signaled earlier this month that he will support a bill that would repeal and said for months that he would reconsider his vote. Yeah, I’m not the one here who’s indulging in wishful thinking to cherry-pick a candidate’s rhetoric. > [@Bone](#): > > Here you move the goal posts. I said that overturning Heller would inerfere with law abiding gun owners’ access to guns. Uh, no, that’s **you** moving the goal posts, because what I said (quoting what _you_ originally said) was that overturning _Heller_ would not **seriously** interfere with law-abiding gun owners’ access to guns. > [@Bone](#): > > I’m sure that you and I have a different interpretation of what “ample” means. That may well be, but you don’t get to swap qualifying adverbs in and out of your statements at will and then claim that **I’m** the one moving the goal posts. :dubious: > [@Bone](#): > > Clinton voted against the PLCAA. Sanders voted for it. There’s sufficient daylight between those actions to illustrate a difference. Whether you think that’s substantial, a minor difference, or something else is up to you. I guess we’ll see. In the meantime, I draw your attention once again to the fact that law-abiding gun owners in this country have very easy access to guns, **and have had over a long span of varying legislative and judicial history**. That was the case before PLCAA and before _Heller_, and there’s no reason to expect things to be fundamentally different if PLCAA and/or _Heller_ is ever rolled back. You have made no remotely credible argument that anything any Democratic President may do in the near future is at all likely to change this country’s fundamentally gun-friendly status, any more than Obama’s alleged gun-confiscation “plan to disarm America” ever did. Right-wingers **always** holler that whoever happens to be the front-running Democratic candidate will effectively destroy gun rights. Hasn’t happened. Won’t happen. ---
**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 23, 2016, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/94 "2016-05-23T22:13:43Z")
I’m not sure I’m following your disagreement. If you’d like to restate it I’ll read it; if not, not. > [@Kimstu](#): > > I guess we’ll see. In the meantime, I draw your attention once again to the fact that law-abiding gun owners in this country have very easy access to guns, **and have had over a long span of varying legislative and judicial history**. That was the case before PLCAA and before _Heller_, and there’s no reason to expect things to be fundamentally different if PLCAA and/or _Heller_ is ever rolled back. No, this wasn’t the case before Heller. Why do you think the Heller suit was brought in the first place? Dick Heller couldn’t buy a gun. Do you think Moore v Madigan would have gone the same way without Heller? Do you think Chicago would be basically shall issue without Heller? Do you think Caetano in Massachusetts would be the same without Heller? Do you think Palmer in DC would be the same without Heller? Texeria in California? Ezell in Chicago? That you believe there would be no fundamental differences if Heller were overturned is naive. This wasn’t the case before the PLCAA either. Smith and Wesson capitulated under litigation that the PLCAA mooted. The goal of gun control folks was to bankrupt manufacturers through litigation before the PLCAA. Cities would use tax dollars to fund their lawsuits before the PLCAA. Thinking that there would be no fundamental differences if the PLCAA were removed is naive. > [@](#): > > You have made no remotely credible argument that anything any Democratic President may do in the near future is at all likely to change this country’s fundamentally gun-friendly status, any more than Obama’s alleged gun-confiscation “plan to disarm America” ever did. Do you remember not too long ago there was an Assault Weapon Ban that was passed under a Democratic President? The idea that no Democratic President could impact the gun-friendly status is again, naive. Is the fact that there was a sweeping ban not too long ago credible? > [@](#): > > Right-wingers **always** holler that whoever happens to be the front-running Democratic candidate will effectively destroy gun rights. Hasn’t happened. Won’t happen. I’ve never made the argument that a Democratic candidate will destroy gun rights. There is no boogeyman there. I disagree with their policy positions though - and that alone is sufficient to vote against them. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2016, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/95 "2016-05-23T22:36:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Do you remember not too long ago there was an Assault Weapon Ban that was passed under a Democratic President? The idea that no Democratic President could impact the gun-friendly status is again, naive. Is the fact that there was a sweeping ban not too long ago credible? What do you mean, “sweeping ban”? Every time the subject comes up, somebody points out how pointless the 1994 PSRFUPA was, because it actually banned very few specific models, excluded previously existing weapons, was very easy to evade by slight design modifications, etc. Now you’re trying to argue that it actually had a major impact and consequently foreshadows the possible major impacts of another Democratic administration? Nah, not buying it. [QUOTE=Bone] I disagree with their policy positions though - and that alone is sufficient to vote against them. [/QUOTE] Fair enough. What I’ve been questioning here is not why anybody would ever vote against a Democrat, but rather how anybody who opposed Democratic policies strongly enough to _literally prefer a vacant Presidency to a Clinton one_ could conceivably imagine that they’d find a Sanders Presidency more congenial. You’ve convinced me that your preference for Sanders over Clinton is based primarily on ignorance and wishful thinking, so that answers my question. Thank you. ---
**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 23, 2016, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/96 "2016-05-23T22:54:36Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > What do you mean, “sweeping ban”? Every time the subject comes up, somebody points out how pointless the 1994 PSRFUPA was, because it actually banned very few specific models, excluded previously existing weapons, was very easy to evade by slight design modifications, etc. Now you’re trying to argue that it actually had a major impact and consequently foreshadows the possible major impacts of another Democratic administration? Nah, not buying it. I’d say a ban that impacted the most popular rifle in the country to be sweeping. Your mileage may vary. Do you realize that it banned standard capacity magazines that were able to hold more than 10 rounds? There are no design modifications around that. > [@](#): > > You’ve convinced me that your preference for Sanders over Clinton is based primarily on ignorance and wishful thinking, so that answers my question. Thank you. What you’ve convinced me of is your ignorance of the topic. Your claim that there would be no fundamental differences if Heller or the PLCAA were overturned is spectacularly wrong. Your claim there is nothing a Democratic President can do that would impact the current status of gun laws in this country is laughable. That and you seem to continually misinterpret the reasoning. Sanders is preferable mostly because he would be ineffective. It doesn’t matter what he proposes because he wouldn’t be able to achieve his goals. Clinton on the other hand may be effective. That’s worse. But under no circumstances would I vote for either. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2016, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/97 "2016-05-25T16:36:47Z")
> [@Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](#): > > Do you read your own citations? Liberals and Progressives hire other liberals and progressives to retrain unemployed coal miners to do what? Write algorithms? Go to beauty school? This article is a joke. There are no jobs awaiting them when they get retrained whatever that means. Someone has to start a business. 11 million dollars? They spend far more on Syrian refugees. I would suggest they learn something other than digging holes in rocks. The coal industry has been in a permanent decline for some time now. Here is an interesting article describing why: > **[The Decline in the US Coal Industry](https://internationalbanker.com/brokerage/decline-us-coal-industry/)** > > In mid-January, North America’s second-largest coal company, Arch Coal, became the first coal company in 2016 to file for bankruptcy protection. Regardless of who is in office, demand for coal will continue to decline as competition from cleaner energy sources such as natural gas and renewables increases. Or should we continue to prop up pre-18th century energy technology? ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/98 "2016-05-31T14:00:25Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Right-wingers **always** holler that whoever happens to be the front-running Democratic candidate will effectively destroy gun rights. Hasn’t happened. Won’t happen. A similar argument might be made about abortion rights (the political view, not to compare or debate the relative merits of the issues themselves). The ‘pro life’ view of GOP candidates is used as rallying and fund raising cry for/against them in elections though it’s arguably no more feasible legally or politically to take decisive legislative action to ban abortion, and it hasn’t happened when/where GOP controls. However in both cases legislative action can change things at the margin, particularly at state level though here we’re talking about national. And in both cases appointments to the federal courts from a pro/anti executive could eventually more seriously change or restrict those rights. Whether that’s a sufficient reason to favor Sanders over Clinton (due to guns) is another question. I doubt it. I lean conservative and find Clinton a lot more palatable, given the terrible mistake IMO the GOP is making by choosing Trump, who I can’t vote for, just a basically unfit person to hold that office. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/99 "2016-05-31T17:17:42Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Why I will vote for Trump if it comes to that: > > 1. Anyone but Hillary. Any_thing_ but Hillary. > 2. We can always hope he’ll be assassinated and his VP will be halfway sane and competent. If the Secret Service could keep Obama alive this long, no POTUS needs to worry. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027/100 "2016-05-31T19:59:15Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I’d say a ban that impacted the most popular rifle in the country to be sweeping. Your mileage may vary. Depends on what “most popular” means. If it means that greater than 50% of gun owners owned that rifle, yeah, that’s pretty sweeping. If, on the other hand, the rifle took up something like 5% of the market share for fire arms, but no other single gun made up more than 4% of the market share, then I’d say it wasn’t a particularly sweeping change. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-people-vote-for-trump-help/754027.md?page=4)