USA presidential elections 2016

careful_eugene · Post by **careful_eugene** » 20 Oct 2016, 11:28

I think Clinton will win, Trump's attitude and behaviour throughout the campaign has upset too many people and they will overcome their distaste and vote Clinton. However, given the noise that Trump has made recently regarding rigged ballots and the possibility that he may not accept the result of the election, I think that there is a very real chance of serious civil unrest.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 20 Oct 2016, 12:01

careful_eugene wrote:I think Clinton will win, Trump's attitude and behaviour throughout the campaign has upset too many people and they will overcome their distaste and vote Clinton. However, given the noise that Trump has made recently regarding rigged ballots and the possibility that he may not accept the result of the election, I think that there is a very real chance of serious civil unrest.

You are probably right about Clinton winning but I doubt there will be much civil unrest no matter how much Trump carries on about election rigging. That won't come until they try to confiscate firearms.

careful_eugene · Post by **careful_eugene** » 20 Oct 2016, 13:25

vtsnowedin wrote:
careful_eugene wrote:I think Clinton will win, Trump's attitude and behaviour throughout the campaign has upset too many people and they will overcome their distaste and vote Clinton. However, given the noise that Trump has made recently regarding rigged ballots and the possibility that he may not accept the result of the election, I think that there is a very real chance of serious civil unrest.
You are probably right about Clinton winning but I doubt there will be much civil unrest no matter how much Trump carries on about election rigging. That won't come until they try to confiscate firearms.

Do you believe that the confiscation of firearms is a possibility? The current president has said many times that he would like to restrict access to certain types of weapon and hasn't been able to make any change in 8 years.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 20 Oct 2016, 15:20

careful_eugene wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
careful_eugene wrote:I think Clinton will win, Trump's attitude and behaviour throughout the campaign has upset too many people and they will overcome their distaste and vote Clinton. However, given the noise that Trump has made recently regarding rigged ballots and the possibility that he may not accept the result of the election, I think that there is a very real chance of serious civil unrest.
You are probably right about Clinton winning but I doubt there will be much civil unrest no matter how much Trump carries on about election rigging. That won't come until they try to confiscate firearms.
Do you believe that the confiscation of firearms is a possibility? The current president has said many times that he would like to restrict access to certain types of weapon and hasn't been able to make any change in 8 years.

As soon as Hillary gets one more liberal judge on the Supreme court the second amendment will be declared null and void for everyone not in the military as a "Well ordered militia" is no longer necessary. The first mass shooting after that and the confiscation attempts will begin and that is when it will really hit the fan.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 20 Oct 2016, 18:30

Trump missed an opportunity last night when he was asked about his comments concerning the election being rigged. What he should have said is that the proof that it is rigged is that Hillary and not Bernie Sanders was standing at the other podium.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 20 Oct 2016, 20:24

vtsnowedin wrote:
careful_eugene wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote: You are probably right about Clinton winning but I doubt there will be much civil unrest no matter how much Trump carries on about election rigging. That won't come until they try to confiscate firearms.
Do you believe that the confiscation of firearms is a possibility? The current president has said many times that he would like to restrict access to certain types of weapon and hasn't been able to make any change in 8 years.
As soon as Hillary gets one more liberal judge on the Supreme court the second amendment will be declared null and void for everyone not in the military as a "Well ordered militia" is no longer necessary. The first mass shooting after that and the confiscation attempts will begin and that is when it will really hit the fan.

No matter how much you try to justify it, I don't see why the population in the US feels the need to be wedded to guns.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 20 Oct 2016, 21:44

vtsnowedin wrote: As soon as Hillary gets one more liberal judge on the Supreme court the second amendment will be declared null and void for everyone not in the military as a "Well ordered militia" is no longer necessary. The first mass shooting after that and the confiscation attempts will begin and that is when it will really hit the fan.

I don't think she is that stupid.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 20 Oct 2016, 21:51

woodburner wrote:
No matter how much you try to justify it, I don't see why the population in the US feels the need to be wedded to guns.

But we do feel that need and it will not change anytime soon. Americans expect to be able to defend themselves against all comers at all times and to have the effective means close at hand. This attitude has served us well and has even bailed out the rest of the world a time or two.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 20 Oct 2016, 21:56

johnhemming2 wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote: As soon as Hillary gets one more liberal judge on the Supreme court the second amendment will be declared null and void for everyone not in the military as a "Well ordered militia" is no longer necessary. The first mass shooting after that and the confiscation attempts will begin and that is when it will really hit the fan.
I don't think she is that stupid.

She thinks we are the stupid ones and won't notice a methodical progressive program timed by current events.
She and her staff are quite impressed with their own intelligence and how cleverly they can manipulate public opinion.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 20 Oct 2016, 22:20

vtsnowedin wrote:
woodburner wrote:
No matter how much you try to justify it, I don't see why the population in the US feels the need to be wedded to guns.
But we do feel that need and it will not change anytime soon. Americans expect to be able to defend themselves against all comers at all times and to have the effective means close at hand. This attitude has served us well and has even bailed out the rest of the world a time or two.

I can see now you have explained it, confirmed by the obvious need felt by those individuals who did a bit of self defence at the odd educational establishment or two. An excellent attitude at home and in the wider defence of the US by such exercises as that conducted in, for example, Iraq.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 21 Oct 2016, 00:49

woodburner wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
woodburner wrote:
No matter how much you try to justify it, I don't see why the population in the US feels the need to be wedded to guns.
But we do feel that need and it will not change anytime soon. Americans expect to be able to defend themselves against all comers at all times and to have the effective means close at hand. This attitude has served us well and has even bailed out the rest of the world a time or two.
I can see now you have explained it, confirmed by the obvious need felt by those individuals who did a bit of self defence at the odd educational establishment or two. An excellent attitude at home and in the wider defence of the US by such exercises as that conducted in, for example, Iraq.

My view has a broader scope encompassing Europe in 1918 and again in 1944 Korea in 1952, Vietnam in 1968 as well as the Gulf wars. My family had members serve in four of those six wars. I missed Vietnam just based on my 1955 birth date. Next week I'm going to take a Vietnam era vet down to the VA so he doesn't have to drive home still effected by the drugs they need to give him. He feels I'm doing him a big favor. I think it is no where near enough.

careful_eugene · Post by **careful_eugene** » 21 Oct 2016, 09:48

vtsnowedin wrote:
johnhemming2 wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote: As soon as Hillary gets one more liberal judge on the Supreme court the second amendment will be declared null and void for everyone not in the military as a "Well ordered militia" is no longer necessary. The first mass shooting after that and the confiscation attempts will begin and that is when it will really hit the fan.
I don't think she is that stupid.
She thinks we are the stupid ones and won't notice a methodical progressive program timed by current events.
She and her staff are quite impressed with their own intelligence and how cleverly they can manipulate public opinion.

I think I agree with John on this, I doubt that any confiscation will take place but if the democrats gain enough power then there may be restrictions on the types of guns that can be bought.

boisdevie · Post by **boisdevie** » 21 Oct 2016, 13:09

"Americans expect to be able to defend themselves against all comers at all times and to have the effective means close at hand. This attitude has served us well and has even bailed out the rest of the world a time or two."

Strange but we Brits seemed to manage to do quite a bit of fighting in WW2 despite the fact that the average Brit at the time didn't have easy access to firearms.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 21 Oct 2016, 14:22

It has to be said that we imported an enormous amount of arms and weapons - tanks, ships, aircraft from the USA in WWII. However, they were not generally small-arms, although it did include Thompson sub machine guns.

I can see that small arms manufacturers need to maintain a turnover of production and capacity in peacetime so that rapid expansion in war time is possible, but that capacity should be funded by the military and kept in storage for when it is needed.

Potemkin Villager · Post by **Potemkin Villager** » 21 Oct 2016, 19:21

PS_RalphW wrote:
I can see that small arms manufacturers need to maintain a turnover of production and capacity in peacetime so that rapid expansion in war time is possible, but that capacity should be funded by the military and kept in storage for when it is needed.

Uhmm Ralph!

Why only small arms manufacturers? Large British arms manufacturers do their bit to enhance the prospect of war and armed insurrection around the world.

So it is OK overseas but not at home?

By "funded by the military" I presume you mean by the public from general taxation? Unless the military is somehow independently wealthy.[/i]