These comments are hardly written as if they are your "opinion".

"Cant take him seriously anyone since I realized he deletes comments that use facts to disprove him or expose his hypocrisy."

and

"Too many cases to list. I was actually a fan of him once, but then, after a few cases, realized he only takes sources that fit his agenda and does never look at the other side of the coin. He ignores other sources and facts completely. And if you dare to bring that up, or even ask why, your comment gets deleted. Politics, science, demographics, history, etc. Hes cherry picking and think people dont check for themselves."

I would be totally interested (and why I'd like you to bother) to know if he is being deceitful as ive never heard this about him. If you are going to make accusations like these you should probably show us what you know (evidence). Don't you think?

Too many cases to list. I was actually a fan of him once, but then, after a few cases, realized he only takes sources that fit his agenda and does never look at the other side of the coin. He ignores other sources and facts completely. And if you dare to bring that up, or even ask why, your comment gets deleted. Politics, science, demographics, history, etc. Hes cherry picking and think people dont check for themselves.

Well, the liberals are winning the demographic game. The majority of immigrants from Mexico are liberal, and have a much higher birthrate than multi-generation Americans. Democrats lost this one from low voter turnout, but in the long term they will win more and more until Republicans can win over a good share of minorities.

@eoe

As ironic as it may be to say this, I think that the Republican Congress will be a strong bulwark against Trump's more nationalistic impulses if it turns out he actually wants to act on them and they weren't just part of demagogic campaigning.

If for no other reason that they know demographics are against them in the longer term. They may have won the election on the electoral college but lost the popular vote - even with all the attempts at voter suppression. In the longer term, winning with their party base becomes harder and harder.

They know if Trump enacts genuine deportation measures against Latinos then the frankly astounding 1/3 of voting Latinos that supported Trump will turn sharply against the Republican party. That group represents the fastest growing demographic in America and they can't afford to lose them for a generation.

In contrast, they will be also act a constraint against any of his ideas on infrastructure spending, congressional term limits or curbing trade. Since it's already clear he's filling his cabinet with establishment Republicans and he has little knowledge of policy, he will likely acquiesce to their suggestions for lack of any other policy advice.

Yeah, they're doing it wrong again. Something they did or just some nebulous culture shift around ~2000 or so seemed to actually work, and it takes about four or five years before you can know whether what you did worked or not. Prior to the 2000 thing, it was scare tactics, which don't work on invincible teenagers. Then they switched to a less dramatic "it's not a big deal, it's okay to chose not to smoke" approach, which I think was the good one.

The real problem (in the US at least) is the 17 and 18 year-old kids smoking, which means the 13-16 year-old kids do it to be like their older peers. If you can break that cycle, even just once, you come as close to solving the problem as you can. But, since there is this lag time between the beginning of the cycle and it coming full circle, the industry assumes it was the most recent ("evil tobacco corporations taking advantage of you") effort that was actually the effective one. I don't think it is. I especially don't think it will work on college-age demographic they're targeting. It's still "The Man" telling them what to do, even if it's a different hand of "The Man."

Isn't voting anonymous?
How do they know the demographic that voted?

anyone?

I'm not a liberal, nor a conservative. I'm a pragmatic moderate.

Of course, ANYONE to the left of you is a "shit liberal". There are more of you every day because the electorate is being polarized.

Unfortunately for you, there's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more "shit liberals" everyday than people of your "ilk". Also, there's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more people who aren't of your ilk than are, and you keep pushing everyone who isn't as irrationally conservative as you away to the Democratic Party.

Remember, people like you caused Trump to get nominated instead of Kasich or Bush, and you might have won with either of them vs Clinton. But no, you're a man of principle! And those principles led you to Donald Trump, the candidate who could never be elected, even with all the political winds from circumstance at his back. Even against the second most disliked major party nominee, only to Trump himself!

I don't expect you to bow down. I expect you to drive yourself crazy as you'll continue to fight the insane fight while you lose election after election, and destroy the Republican Party as you keep it hostage under the threat of primarying any rational members they have left, handing election after election to Democrats until conservatives and the Republican Party become irrelevant and powerless.

That's what you can do. You keep that fight up! Never give up, never surrender! No matter how far you feel yourself sinking in the quicksand, between millennials completely rejecting your ideology, growing populations of minorities who reject you, demographics that show that eventually large electoral vote rich states like Texas will become competitive and will flip and turn blue. Nevermind the GOP has managed to win the popular vote one time in the last six elections, soon to be a seventh. Next time, keep thinking going down this path will work!

But don't you stop fighting! Keep struggling! I expect nothing less! This isn't about this election anymore. It's about wreaking havoc against your own side for decades to come! Nominate Trump in 2020 again! Primary the traitor Paul Ryan!

Mwa ha ha ha ha ha!

MWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The stats were percentage of total population, not individuals. The Jewish (immigrant)population was growing exponentially faster than non-Jewish. The concern is because it was the Jewish ones that decided to permanently relocate in huge numbers (larger than all other demographics put together) across the continent to a single small country that could not stop them, and then take it by force, expelling the natives.
This "refugee from hostility" bullshit is just that as I see it. If, as you claim, the Arab population in Palestine was already hostile to Jews specifically (and I contend that if they were it was a function of massive illegal immigration, often by militants, that pushed them to it), then moving there would do absolutely nothing to alleviate the concern they might have for people that are hostile in Northern Europe. It's a complete red herring argument, ridiculous on it's face, and worse when examined closely.

"except for the holocaust part"....
Tell that to the families of the students murdered by police, or the tens of thousands of Guatemalans fleeing murder squads. State sponsored murder is state sponsored murder, it doesn't require total genocide (although the Jews don't have a monopoly on that either) and Mexicans and others have just as valid a claim that they are oppressed by it (not to the same extent as Jews under the Nazis, no, but as much or more than before the Nazis started their campaigns).

OK, let's play pretend...starting with pretending the rest of the world has an American constitution requiring equal treatment and denying discrimination based on race or religion....but I'll bite.
Almost all that happened in the 50's-60's....in case you weren't aware....without the Rwandan genocide part, or the backing by a foreign nation arming the black side. I think there were even attempts at succeeding by some groups back then....but they got no support, and were 'driven into the sea' in essence, mostly driven into prison, hiding, or a 6 ft box in reality.
Comparing the Arab league to NATO and the US is hardly realistic, unless the black nation in your "example" gets the military backing of Russia, China, Africa, South America, and parts of central America, and NATO only contains the US, Mexico, and Canada, and has no chance against new Africa and it's allies, which beats them mercilessly then expands north for decades. Also, you have to change the immigration from Rwanda, a tiny nation, to black "refugees" from the entire planet...and even then you don't have close to the same per capita immigration problem European Jewish immigrants posed to native Palestinians. All that said...I'm pretty sure some Northern leaders publicly declared they would drive the secessionists into the sea in the civil war, so it would be nothing new here. Also, it would be totally proper to do so in your hypothetical, IMO. Any invaders can be driven out by force by any nation...and that nation gets to decide who's an invader. Keep in mind that in your example, the black nation would expel all non blacks and seize their property....which is usually called theft.

I'll stick with my Mexican analogy, it's vastly more apt, IMO....it's as if you forgot that there are native Mexicans in the US that did have their property rights infringed on and were discriminated against (and still are)...and/or aren't aware that Rwanda is much smaller than the US or even smaller than many individual states, and/or ignored that the Arab League is much smaller and infinitely less capable than the UN or NATO, so not a decent comparison.....or aren't aware of.....well, that's enough, no need to harp.

Yeah, this is all bullshit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8189231.stm
or here:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/demographics.asp

Do we even need to sift crap like this?

First up, bring back the old quoting system!

"I'm of the opinion that both Hillary and Trump would make bad presidents."

Agreed.

"That being said, I don't really believe the narrative that Trump would be the worse of the two; the "apocalyptic" one to elect. Trump is incompetent and chaotic. Hillary is greasy and corrupt."

Which one has campaigned for a law that flagrantly violates the first amendment? Which one has called an entire demographic of US citizens rapists and murderers?

" I think the system (which is actually pretty well designed at its core..."

The American political system is a complete clusterfuck. You have a two party monopoly, the electoral college is a disaster and then there's Citizens United.

"The DNC had a chance to put in another option that would have easily had as much support from core Democrats as Hillary, but also would have energized younger voters AND been a very attractive option for Republicans who don't buy in to Trump (of which there are many). But instead, they left their fingers on the scales and tipped things in favor of Hillary."

Completely agree. Instead of the excitement of a Bernie running, you have the "ugh, Hillary, I guess" attitude.

"So, I'll vote for one of the 3rd party candidates (I like Stein's stance on Snowden, so probably her) or write in the option that crooked DNC and Hillary denied us. Either of those actions is de-facto more likely to result in President Trump, and I acknowledge that. But like I said, I'm OK with that -- I honestly believe Hillary would be worse, and the main thing is that me and other people like me have to send a message to both parties that they need to present us with more reasonable candidates if they expect us to have any degree of the "party loyalty" that both sides expected / enjoyed in the past. This election cycle shows that they are taking that for granted -- so screw 'em."

And here we have the major issue. I have NO IDEA how people think electing Trump will somehow bring down the system. "Screw 'em"?? As in the dems and the gop? It won't bother them in the slightest.

But it will bother Mexicans, Muslims, LGBT people and em.... damnit, there was another demographic that the Republicans want to fuck over.... oh yeah... women.

Forget Trump. As much of an unconscionable arsehole as he is, look at the GOP platform for 2016:
- tax cuts for the rich
- repeal environmental protections
- an anti-abortion amendment
- oppose stem cell research
- prop up the electoral college
- ignore climate change agreements
- repeal obamacare
- abolish net neutrality
- oppose same-sex marriage
- abstinence-based sex education
- increase military spending
- the ridiculous and wasteful border wall

and finally, appoint a new Supreme Court Judge to push all this through. And THAT is the real reason Trump can't be allowed to be President. Say what you want about Hillary, but at least she won't choose a complete loon for the supreme court. Trump might pick David Duke, for all we know.

That's the thing, I think they probably are.

I saw a quote the other day that said if Trump wins, "it won't be a great time to be mexican or black or a woman in America, but other than that things will be pretty much the same".

It's 2016. Writing off huge demographics like that shouldn't be an option.

@newtboy, I don't know what you do to affect change in the US. Your political system is awful, your voting system is borderline insane and your judicial apparatus is compounding the problem with some unbelievably short-sighted decision (i.e. Citizens United).

But I do know the answer isn't Trump.

If your house has rot, you don't burn it down. You have to do the hard work of finding the problem areas, scaffolding them to protect the rest of the house, ripping out the problems, replacing them and then insulating so you don't get the problem again.

@bobknight33

the reasons why blacks tend to vote for democrats for the past 50 years is not a mystery and it has been long understood.

labor unions.

the democrats saw the power that was arising from americas labor unions and decided to shift their message to appeal to this growing demographic.

just like the republicans co-opted the evangelicals in the late 70's.

this is about political power,plain and simple and little to nothing to do with actual political philosophy.

this is the second video you have posted today where you appear to be trying to make a case for the republicans,and the presenters are offering a seriously edited,cherry picked and manipulative picture of history.when the history is quite clear.

this is not a republican/democratic dynamic.
this is a power vs powerlessness dynamic.
this is about retaining power at any cost.
to the detriment of our society.

and it is not exactly a secret,but these videos you have posted are a disservice to those who may not know,which it appears,may include you bob.

Lawrence Wilkerson's dismissive comments about self defense are very disrespectful to people who have had to resort to self defense. He wouldn't say things like that had he been unfortunate enough to have had such a personal experience. (As one parent of a Fla victim said - his child would have given anything for a firearm at the time of the event.)

Re. 2nd amendment, yes, it's not for pure self defense. The reasoning is provided within the text. The government is denied legal powers over gun ownership ('shall not be infringed') in order to preserve the ability of the people to form a civilian paramilitary intended to face [presumably invading] foreign militaries in combat ('militia').

It's important to remember that the U.S. is a republic - so the citizens are literally the state (not in abstract, but actually so). As such, there is very little distinction between self defense and state defense - given that self and state are one.

Personally, I believe any preventative law is a moral non-starter. Conceptually they rely on doling out punishment via rights-denial to all people, because some subset might do harm. Punishment should be reserved for those that trespass on others - violating their domain (body/posessions/etc). Punishment should not be preemptive, simply to satiate the fears/imaginations of persons not affected by those punished. Simply, there should be no laws against private activities among consenting individuals. Folks don't have to like what other folks do, and they don't have to be liked either. It's enough to just leave one another alone in peace.

Re. Fla, the guilty party is dead. People should not abuse government to commit 3rd party trespass onto innocent disliked demographics (gun owners) just to lash out. Going after groups of people out of fear or dislike is unjustified.







---------------------------------------------------




As an aside, the focus on "assault rifles" makes gun control advocates appear not sincere, and rather knee-jerk/emotional. Practically all gun killings utilize pistols.

There are only around 400 or so total rifle deaths per year (for all kinds of rifles combined) - which is almost as many as the people who die each year by falling out of bed (ever considered a bed to be deadly? With 300 million people, even low likelihood events must still happen reasonably often. It's important to keep in mind the likelihood, and not simply the totals.).

Around 10'000 people die each day out of all causes. Realistically, rifles of all sorts, especially assault rifles, are not consequential enough to merit special attention - given the vast ocean of far more deadly things to worry about.

If they were calling for a ban+confiscation of all pistols, with a search of every home and facility in the U.S., then I'd consider the advocates to be at least making sense regarding the objective of reducing gun related death.

Also, since sidearms have less utility in a military application, a pistol ban is less anti-2nd-amendment than an assault rifle ban.







As a technical point, ar15s are not actually assault rifles - they just look like one (m4/m16).
Assault rifles are named after the German Sturm Gewehr (storm rifle). It's a rifle that splits the difference between a sub-machinegun (automatic+pistol ammo) and a battle rifle (uses normal rifle/hunting ammo).

- SMG is easy to control in automatic, but has limited damage. (historical example : ppsh-41)

- Battle rifles do lots of damage, but are hard to control (lots of recoil, using full power hunting ammo). (historical example : AVT-40)

- An 'assault rifle' uses something called an 'intermediate cartridge'. It's a shrunken down, weaker version of hunting ammo. A non-high-power rifle round, that keeps recoil in check when shooting automatic. It's stronger than a pistol, but weaker than a normal rifle. But that weakness makes it controllable in automatic fire. (historical example : StG-44)

- The ar15 has no automatic fire. This defeats the purpose of using weak ammo (automatic controlability). So in effect, it's just a weak normal rifle. (The M4/M16 have automatic, so they can make use of the weak ammo to manage recoil - and they happen to look the same).

Practically speaking, a semi-auto hunting rifle is more lethal. A Remington 7400 with box mag is a world deadlier than an ar15. An M1A looks like a hunting rifle, and is likewise deadlier than an ar15. Neither are viewed as evil or dangerous.

You can also get hunting rifles that shoot intermediate cartridges (eg. Ruger Mini14). The lethality is identical to an ar15, but because it doesn't look black and scary, no one complains.

In practice, what makes the ar15 scary is its appearance. The pistol grip, the adjustable stock, the muzzle device, the black color, all are visual identifiers, and those visuals have become politically more important than what it actually does.

You can see the lack of firearms awareness in the proposed laws - proposed bans focus on those visual features. No pistol grips, no adjustable stocks, etc. Basically a listing of ancillary features that evoke scary appearance, and nothing to do with the core capabilities of a firearm.

What has made the ar15 the most popular rifle in the country, is that it has very good ergonomics, and is very friendly to new shooters. The low recoil doesn't scare new shooters away, and the great customizability makes it like a gun version of a tuner-car.

I think its massive success, popularity, and widespread adoption, have made it the most likely candidate to be used in a shooting. It's cursed to be on-hand whenever events like Fla happen.

-scheherazade

I dunno. I mean, it looks like it's better than the first one because at least it's picking the cartoon version of TMNT and sticking with it, but it still has that Michael Bay 'style' where they tell the CGI team to just go fucking nuts and to hell with composition or editing, shot to shot cohesion and basically realism and believability in general. Put tons of shiny CGI shit on the screen moving around really fast and call it action.

So... the 7-12 year old male demographic will probably like it. I guess that's okay. That's who the cartoon appealed to.

@bobknight33 --

I continue to agree with you on a lot of what you're saying (but not all).

Trump and Sanders are both riding a wave of frustration in the people, as you say. Their current popularity, even if both only go downhill from here, has already partially sent that message to both parties. I don't think Trump would make a good president, but if he wins the election I think that really hammering home that message of frustration could be a significant positive outcome. Same goes for some hypothetical scenario resulting in Sanders getting elected, although I personally feel quite positive about the other stuff that I think Sanders would bring to the table, unlike how I feel about Trump.

If there's one area where I think the government could stand to get *bigger*, it's in oversight, evaluation, and accountability. Being under the microscope and heavily scrutinized perhaps isn't a recipe for optimal efficiency, but I think we desperately need more of it in government AND the private sector.

Early in my lifetime, a large corporation that had a relatively benign monopoly by today's standards was considered a big enough deal for the government to step in and break it up. AT&T / Bell got split into the "Baby Bells". Corporations now are vast juggernauts compared to that, but since they make gigantic profits I guess we collectively see them as bastions of Capitalism. But I think that in reality they are doing much more harm to Capitalism with their monopolies, collusion, and corruption.

I think Sanders is the candidate most likely to even *try* to do something to roll back that shift, and bring back oversight and accountability to government. Hillary sure as hell wouldn't do it. And I don't think Trump would either -- he is the literal face of a gigantic Corporation himself, after all.

I had high hopes for Obama. He didn't live up to them, but to be fair I think the lion's share of that is on the Legislative branch. That taught me to be careful about putting much of any stock into Presidential campaign promises, particularly about things outside the scope of what the Executive branch can actually do.

I think Trump and Clinton both put *themselves* first, ahead of all else. I don't think Clinton gives a flying fuck about any of us plebs, beyond attempting to pander to large demographic blocks of us just enough to secure our votes. Maybe Trump cares more for Joe Average than Clinton, but only incidentally -- as a Capitalist he needs Joe Averages to buy his products, and buy into his image.

I don't get the same read from Sanders. I think he actually does give a shit. A lot of his agenda would require a cooperative Legislature, which he wouldn't get -- just like Obama. So in terms of changing the status quo, perhaps his biggest impact would simply be in sending the establishment a loud and clear message that we are no longer content with business as usual in Washington. A message very similar to what electing Trump would send.

It would/ will take me some soul searching, but assuming that Hillary gets the Democrat nomination over Sanders, a desire to send that message might be enough to get me to vote for Trump. But voting for a reasonably tolerable option from a minor party might serve that end just as well. Say Jesse Ventura running as a Libertarian, or Jill Stein from the Green Party. Stein has the very distinct advantage (from my perspective) of being the only current candidate who has said that she would grant a Presidential pardon to Ed Snowden (although Ventura would too, IF he runs). Pardons are one of the few things that a President can actually *do* unilaterally -- and that makes that a pretty damn good "single issue" prompt for my vote, in my opinion.