2016 US election discussion

[radamfi]

Geert Wilders was banned from the UK and was refused entry when he arrived at Heathrow. However, the ban was subsequently lifted.

 

[Greenback]

I think that the whole debating of petitions is pretty meaningless and is more of a sop and a reflection of modern internet life than anything else.

Even if Trump could be banned following this debate I don't think there are any real grounds for doing so.

 

[Johnuk123]

.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that the whole debating of petitions is pretty meaningless and is more of a sop and a reflection of modern internet life than anything else.

Quite the contrary in my view - it's direct democracy, and the Internet empowers it. We need more of it, not less of it.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Even if Trump could be banned following this debate I don't think there are any real grounds for doing so.

We ban other kinds of extremists from entering the country so why not this extremist?

 

[Oswyntail]

I think some people think this debate is taking place in the chamber of the house of commons but it's actually in another room nearby, the other petition about not banning him is also being debated.The room in which the debate is held does not affect the status of the debate in any way. It is sensible to debate the two petitions together

There is no vote because Parliament can't ban anybody so it will just be a chance for a few mp's to spout forth.It is also an opportunity for the Government to gauge the reaction of the House, the better to inform any decision that is made

We constantly hear how mp's haven't got enought time to do anything (Do we?) but by debating this ridiculous petition it proves that they've got time for trivia. The petition itself is not "ridiculous", though many seem to interpret it in odd ways. The man has made inflammatory statements about the situation in the UK, which some consider to be on a par with those made by others whose entrance has been banned. It should make no difference that he is a prominent US politician. The issue is far from trivial, as it could set precedents for even more unsavoury characters (if that is possible)

I very much doubt he will win the Presidency, or perhaps even the nomination. However, he has firmly established himself as the representative of the redneck bigots, and could be causing difficulties (or amusement, if you look at it that way) for whoever does win for a long time.

 

[Butts]

I very much doubt he will win the Presidency, or perhaps even the nomination. However, he has firmly established himself as the representative of the redneck bigots, and could be causing difficulties (or amusement, if you look at it that way) for whoever does win for a long time.

The biggest worry for The Republicans is if he decides to stand as an Independent if he fails to achieve their nomination.

This would almost hand the Presidency to whoever the Democrats choose as their candidate.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The biggest worry for The Republicans is if he decides to stand as an Independent if he fails to achieve their nomination.

This would almost hand the Presidency to whoever the Democrats choose as their candidate.

Which, let's face it is probably the best outcome as far as the rest of the world is concerned!

 

[Clip]

Which, let's face it is probably the best outcome as far as the rest of the world is concerned!

Even if that is Hilary Clinton? Not so sure there

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which, let's face it is probably the best outcome as far as the rest of the world is concerned!

It might offset the risk Obama has taken by introducing (only basic, I'll admit) gun controls in an antidemocratic manner (i.e. avoiding Congress).

I support the controls, but I don't support antidemocratic behaviour; it's one reason I dislike presidential democracy and prefer our system where the head of state is a figure and a Parliament of multiple people really runs the show.

 

[miami]

Even if that is Hilary Clinton? Not so sure there

The next 6 weeks will tell, but it's Clinton vs Trump in all the polls so far. Second for the republicans is Cruz, and Clinton's opposition is Bernie Sanders, who will be 75 at the election, 6 years older than the previous record holder Ronald Reagan. Not going to happen.

While I'd personally prefer to see Bernie Sanders in place, I don't think it's going to happen, so the question is "best for the world" being Clinton or Cruz.

 

[southern442]

Even if that is Hilary Clinton? Not so sure there

It doesn't matter how competent the president is if it's a Democrat; we just need someone to keep the fascism and corruption down to a minimum

 

[TheNewNo2]

It might offset the risk Obama has taken by introducing (only basic, I'll admit) gun controls in an antidemocratic manner (i.e. avoiding Congress).

I support the controls, but I don't support antidemocratic behaviour; it's one reason I dislike presidential democracy and prefer our system where the head of state is a figure and a Parliament of multiple people really runs the show.

There has been no executive orders or anything, it just means that the agencies involved in gun regulation will apply the current rules a bit more strictly to people who make money selling guns privately.

I do agree with your comment about presidential systems though. Obama is the most powerful man in the world but similarly quite incredibly powerless. The US system has too many veto points to allow anything to get done in a polarised society where power is not held by a single party. Besides, constitutional monarchies are more democratic anyway.

Regarding Trump, I'm not sure I see him winning the nomination. My current bet would be Ted Cruz, who I think will win Iowa (superior groundgame), and by doing so will deflate the Trump bubble, and most of Trump's supporters will go Cruz (closest ideological match) and thus Cruz wins elsewhere too. Bush is toast, Rubio has a chance but he's probably too many people's number two candidate and not anyone's number one. Christie I think will win New Hampshire but nowhere else.

 

[NY Yankee]

The biggest worry for The Republicans is if he decides to stand as an Independent if he fails to achieve their nomination.

This would almost hand the Presidency to whoever the Democrats choose as their candidate.

There are people in the far right who want America to be a 100% white and Christian nation. They abhor blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims. The silent majority of people in the southern states (Alabama, Mississippi, Texas,...) love Trump. However, if Trump runs as an independent then that'll siphon votes from the mainstream Republican candidate (similar to how Ralph Nader stole votes from Al Gore back in 2000).

It might offset the risk Obama has taken by introducing (only basic, I'll admit) gun controls in an antidemocratic manner (i.e. avoiding Congress).

I support the controls, but I don't support antidemocratic behaviour; it's one reason I dislike presidential democracy and prefer our system where the head of state is a figure and a Parliament of multiple people really runs the show.

The problem with gun control is that it's not a panacea. Democrats think that gun control will magically eliminate all of the crime in urban areas. Most of the criminals obtain firearms illegally. And even if there was effective gun control, criminals would find other ways to harm people.

 

[radamfi]

The problem with gun control is that it's not a panacea. Democrats think that gun control will magically eliminate all of the crime in urban areas. Most of the criminals obtain firearms illegally. And even if there was effective gun control, criminals would find other ways to harm people.

So why is the murder rate so much higher in the US than in most other developed countries?

 

[NY Yankee]

So why is the murder rate so much higher in the US than in most other developed countries?

(not a comparison, I'm just addressing this post)

There's a prison-industrial complex in the States. Prisons make money when minorities (black and Hispanics) are incarcerated. Broken families and poor education lead to a life of crime for the disenfranchised. Furthermore, a person with a criminal record is ostracized and has difficulties finding employment. That leads to recidivism.

In Western European countries, there's more of a social safety net. Even the impoverished receive a decent education and housing. There are more job opportunities and no racism (with the exception of a few people who don't like Muslims).

Back to my main point. Gun control won't automatically stop violence. There are other ways to harm people (knives, machetes,...). Gun control legislation treats the symptom, not the disease.

 

[Altfish]

The problem with gun control is that it's not a panacea. Democrats think that gun control will magically eliminate all of the crime in urban areas. Most of the criminals obtain firearms illegally. And even if there was effective gun control, criminals would find other ways to harm people.

I don't think Democrats think that. They simply think that the current laws / controls are not working and that some (very limited) gun control may make a difference.
It is more difficult for a person in the UK to get a fishing licence than it is to own a gun in the US.

 

[radamfi]

Highly publicised mass shootings in America are often carried out by white men or teenagers who do not necessarily come from particularly deprived backgrounds. They may not be particularly prone to violence but they may have temporarily acute emotional problems. If they can easily get hold of a gun then they will be more likely to act on impulse. People in the UK or other western countries who aren't involved in gangs etc. wouldn't have a clue how to find a gun and most people probably haven't even seen a gun apart from those carried by armed police. Knives are available but it is more difficult to kill people with knives as people tend to run away when someone attacks them with a knife and it is a lot harder to kill many people at once with knives.

 

[NSEFAN]

There's a prison-industrial complex in the States. Prisons make money when minorities (black and Hispanics) are incarcerated. Broken families and poor education lead to a life of crime for the disenfranchised. Furthermore, a person with a criminal record is ostracized and has difficulties finding employment. That leads to recidivism.

In Western European countries, there's more of a social safety net. Even the impoverished receive a decent education and housing. There are more job opportunities and no racism (with the exception of a few people who don't like Muslims).

I agree that deprived backgrounds are a reason why people go into a life of crime, and that prisons for profit are a very bad idea. It's all well and good locking people up, but if we want to reintegrate them into society then we need to help them rather than alienate them further. Otherwise they never break free from the "original sin" of whatever crime they've committed.

Back to my main point. Gun control won't automatically stop violence. There are other ways to harm people (knives, machetes,...). Gun control legislation treats the symptom, not the disease.

Surely the culture of having easy access to automatic weapons is itself part of the problem? I know I'd be a bit edgy if I knew that every man and his dog could carry an offensive weapon around without needing any reason at all, especially in big towns and cities where you're often confined in small spaces with lots of people. Modern cities and towns should have police forces and shouldn't be relying on citizens arming themselves "just in case". Obviously rural areas are different, as there may be dangerous wild animals etc.

It's sometimes said that the "good guys" need to have guns to fend off the "bad guys", but I don't buy the view that everyone fits into one of these categories. Anyone can have bad days and may be tempted to do something stupid in the heat of the moment. Why create a situation where someone in a bad mental state also has easy access to a weapon that they can kill many people with very quickly?

 

[TheNewNo2]

The problem with gun control is that it's not a panacea. Democrats think that gun control will magically eliminate all of the crime in urban areas. Most of the criminals obtain firearms illegally. And even if there was effective gun control, criminals would find other ways to harm people.

You're quite right, it's not a panacea, and Democrats don't generally believe that it is. They do however believe that it will help a bit. The argument from the GOP and gun lobby is generally "it won't fix everything so what's the point".

Since this is a rail forum, let's have a rail analogy:

People hate the seating layout on Voyagers, so let's go with that. Suppose that you could change the seating layout on half of them so that all the seats lined up with windows, nice and comfy, etc. Now that doesn't fix the issue entirely (half the fleet is still hated), but it's an improvement on the current situation.

Now pretend that the seats on Voyagers kill people on a regular basis and you're about there.



Regarding the whole "criminals obtain guns illegally" issue, that's pretty much a red herring. First off, there's no sort of induction into the black market as soon as you decide to commit a crime. Criminals are by and large normal people, and petty criminals are unlikely to have any greater access to guns than regular people. Secondly, the point is to make it more difficult to obtain guns. If someone really wants something they will find a way to get it. It doesn't matter what that thing is, if you try hard enough you can obtain it. But if you make it harder, less people will go through with doing so.

You're also quite correct that if guns didn't exist, criminals would still be able to hurt people. No one denies that. But there's a significant difference. If someone uses a gun, they can attack people from long range, and they can easily hurt multiple people quickly. Compare this to a knife - you have to use a knife up close, meaning the other person has a greater chance of stopping you, and you can't hurt so many people at once. Furthermore, a gunshot has a much greater chance of killing someone than does a knife wound.

America though has a problem - the sheer number of guns. There is (roughly, estimates vary) one gun for every man, woman and child in the country. Gun control cannot be truly effective in the US without a significant buyback or confiscation programme.

Frankly though, crimals with guns are not the problem, it's normal people with guns. There are roughly 30,000 gun suicides in the US each year. Now before you argue it, yes, if someone really wants to commit suicide they will find a way. But pretty much every other method of suicide is significantly less effective. If you try to overdose, chances are you'll fail. Jump in front of a car or off a bridge, you may well end up with some broken bones. Moreover, many people who attempt to commit suicide regret it. I remember the story of someone who jumped off a bridge. They said that as soon as they jumped, they realised everything in their life which had seemed impossible was in fact eminently fixable. Apart from having just jumped. Luckily they survived. If they'd shot themselves, they wouldn't have.

But even beyond suicide is the accidental homicide. Someone is shot and killed by a toddler every week in the US. Children find guns and they accidentally kill their friends or family. That is ****ed up. There are also ways to prevent it - so-called "smart guns", where the gun needs a code entered before it can be used, or where it has to be held by someone wearing a special ring or watch, or guns with fingerprint or palm scanners. That is all technology which exists now, but gun manufacturers refuse to implement.

People can responsibly own guns. They can keep them locked up in safes, install trigger guards, ensure that they educate their children in proper firearm safety. But not everyone is so responsible. We rightly say that before you can drive a few tons of metal around at 70mph you need to obtain a licence. A car is a machine designed for transport which can be used to kill. A gun is designed for nothing other than to kill. They should not be possessed by the general public unless that person can demonstrate a specific need of a gun, and submits to appropriate licensing.

(Mod note: can we split this thread please? I'm unsure quite how gun control trumped Trump.)

 

[Greenback]

Reducing access to firearms won;t eliminate crime or even violent crime and I don't think anyone, Democrat or otherwise has ever claimed that it would. However, it would reduce the sort of terrible mass killings that we see so often in the US, and which really does a lot to shame America in the eyes of the rest of the world.

The bottom line is that there are too many guns in the US, it;s far too easy to get hold of one, and that's why they are far more shootings than in other civilised countries where there are lot more stringent gun controls.

 

[NY Yankee]

Highly publicised mass shootings in America are often carried out by white men or teenagers who do not necessarily come from particularly deprived backgrounds. They may not be particularly prone to violence but they may have temporarily acute emotional problems. If they can easily get hold of a gun then they will be more likely to act on impulse.

Speaking as a black American, there are more shootings in urban areas than these mass shootings. A mass shooting may occur once every few months, but almost everyday, someone is shot in Chicago or Detroit. It's the sad reality.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You're also quite correct that if guns didn't exist, criminals would still be able to hurt people. No one denies that. But there's a significant difference. If someone uses a gun, they can attack people from long range, and they can easily hurt multiple people quickly. Compare this to a knife - you have to use a knife up close, meaning the other person has a greater chance of stopping you, and you can't hurt so many people at once. Furthermore, a gunshot has a much greater chance of killing someone than does a knife wound.

America though has a problem - the sheer number of guns. There is (roughly, estimates vary) one gun for every man, woman and child in the country. Gun control cannot be truly effective in the US without a significant buyback or confiscation programme.

Frankly though, crimals with guns are not the problem, it's normal people with guns. There are roughly 30,000 gun suicides in the US each year. Now before you argue it, yes, if someone really wants to commit suicide they will find a way. But pretty much every other method of suicide is significantly less effective. If you try to overdose, chances are you'll fail. Jump in front of a car or off a bridge, you may well end up with some broken bones. Moreover, many people who attempt to commit suicide regret it. I remember the story of someone who jumped off a bridge. They said that as soon as they jumped, they realised everything in their life which had seemed impossible was in fact eminently fixable. Apart from having just jumped. Luckily they survived. If they'd shot themselves, they wouldn't have.

But even beyond suicide is the accidental homicide. Someone is shot and killed by a toddler every week in the US. Children find guns and they accidentally kill their friends or family. That is ****ed up. There are also ways to prevent it - so-called "smart guns", where the gun needs a code entered before it can be used, or where it has to be held by someone wearing a special ring or watch, or guns with fingerprint or palm scanners. That is all technology which exists now, but gun manufacturers refuse to implement.
(Mod note: can we split this thread please? I'm unsure quite how gun control trumped Trump.)

People jump off the Golden Gate Bridge almost everyday. Again, it's a sad reality, but the point I'm trying to make is that if someone is determined enough then they'll find a way to kill. Rather than to address gun control, they should address why people are violent in the first place.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

(Mod note: can we split this thread please? I'm unsure quite how gun control trumped Trump.)

Back to Donald Trump, his latest antics include attacking the citizenship of Ted Cruz. In case you're unaware, only citizens born in America can run for President. Cruz was born in Canada. His mom was born in America and his dad was born in Cuba. I really don't care enough about this issue to have an opinion. I'm more worried about job creation and stopping ISIS. Nevertheless, this only shows how low Trump will stoop.

 

[radamfi]

You can have poor economic circumstances (poverty/unemployment) but still have low crime. Unemployment in America is relatively low compared to most of Europe. But crime is particularly low in Greece, for example, which has obvious economic and employment problems. Balkan countries such as Bulgaria and Macedonia also have high unemployment and are very poor compared to western Europe or the US but also have low crime levels. You can walk around the gypsy ghettos and not worry about being mugged, never mind shot.

 

[Oswyntail]

... only citizens born in America can run for President. Cruz was born in Canada. ....

Not quite. The term used is "natural born citizens". Typically, the exact meaning of this term has never been defined. If, at the time of birth, either parent was a citizen of the USA, then their child is eligible to take that citizenship, regardless of where he was born. Whether this meets the criteria has often been discussed but never settled in court.

 

[miami]

Not quite. The term used is "natural born citizens". Typically, the exact meaning of this term has never been defined. If, at the time of birth, either parent was a citizen of the USA, then their child is eligible to take that citizenship, regardless of where he was born. Whether this meets the criteria has often been discussed but never settled in court.

The last time this came up, the Senate passed a resolution

John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States

A resolution sponsored by both H Clinton and Obama (and others) and passed unanimously. I suspect a similar measure would not pass unanimously with Cruz, because there will be many on the GOP side that look at Trump's popularity and think "I want a piece of that".

Trump of course washes his hands of it with "I don't know, many people don't think he's eligable but don't quote me", to go along with his "Maybe he should have been roughed up" messages (the I don't condone violence of course wink wink type we've seen in the past)

 

[TheNewNo2]

Speaking as a black American, there are more shootings in urban areas than these mass shootings. A mass shooting may occur once every few months, but almost everyday, someone is shot in Chicago or Detroit. It's the sad reality.

It depends how you define mass shooting. If you go by the metric "four people were shot", then there was more than one mass shooting per day in 2015. http://www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-calendar-2015 It is a sad reality, but we shouldn't resign ourselves to it.

People jump off the Golden Gate Bridge almost everyday. Again, it's a sad reality, but the point I'm trying to make is that if someone is determined enough then they'll find a way to kill. Rather than to address gun control, they should address why people are violent in the first place.

So bridges have safety features added, like high fences to make it more difficult for people to climb. We moved from a world where pills came in bottles to one where they come in push-packs, and you can't buy more than a certain amount at one time. Sure you can still commit suicide by ODing on ibuprofen or something, but it's a lot more effort now than it used to be, and that does have a real effect. That is what gun control is - it's not the solution to all violence, but it's a solution to SOME violence. You (and GOP) seem to live in a world where unless a solution proposed fixes absolutely everything with no downsides it is something that is not acceptable. Witness the moment in that 2011 debate when all candidates said they would oppose a deficit deal if taxes went up, even if they went up by $1 for every $10 of cuts. For the GOP that would have been a great deal, but if you value ideological purity over results you never get anything done and the situation will never improve.

Politics is the art of compromise, and a good compromise is one where both sides are equally unhappy. That seems to have been forgotten.

Back to Donald Trump, his latest antics include attacking the citizenship of Ted Cruz. In case you're unaware, only citizens born in America can run for President. Cruz was born in Canada. His mom was born in America and his dad was born in Cuba. I really don't care enough about this issue to have an opinion. I'm more worried about job creation and stopping ISIS. Nevertheless, this only shows how low Trump will stoop.

The last time this came up, the Senate passed a resolution

A resolution sponsored by both H Clinton and Obama (and others) and passed unanimously. I suspect a similar measure would not pass unanimously with Cruz, because there will be many on the GOP side that look at Trump's popularity and think "I want a piece of that".

Trump of course washes his hands of it with "I don't know, many people don't think he's eligable but don't quote me", to go along with his "Maybe he should have been roughed up" messages (the I don't condone violence of course wink wink type we've seen in the past)

No one was ever in any doubt of Trump's birtherism, given how he went against Obama about it. Now I don't condone the birther attacks on Cruz, but damn they make me smile.

That said, it is a sad state the US is in. The GOP went to war with Obama, and they are paying the price. John McCain is no angel, but in 2008 he at least had the decency to put people straight at his rallies when they said Obama was evil. But once Obama was elected, that all stopped. The GOP congresspeople got together and said "whatever Obama is for, we are against". At every stage they made Obama's actions out as not just something they disagreed with, but malicious and actively hostile to the country. They didn't stand up and say "no, he is the President", they egged the birthers on. The GOP has disagreed at every stage with whatever Obama does, but they never offer an actual alternative. They oppose Obamacare, despite it basically being the GOP plan from the 90s, and for six years now they have been saying they will come up with a new plan. But they haven't. They decry Obama's actions in Syria, but they don't hold a vote to say what they think should actually happen. They have rebuilt their party into a place with no intellectual honesty, no attempts at actual governance, where even accepting that Obama is a reasonable person is absolute treason. Heck, they're trying to impeach Hillary before even a single vote has been cast for her.

The GOP sowed the seeds of Trumpism, now they reap the whirlwind, and I for one will not shed a single tear as he tears them apart.

 

[Altfish]

So why is the murder rate so much higher in the US than in most other developed countries?

Because the good people don't have enough guns:roll:

This message is brought to you by the NRA

 

[TheNewNo2]

FiveThirtyEight are now predicting Ted Cruz as the winner of Iowa at 49% chance. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/

 

[miami]

FiveThirtyEight are now predicting Ted Cruz as the winner of Iowa at 49% chance. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/

They expected the Torys to get 278 seats, Labour 267 and Lib Dems 27.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Even if that is Hilary Clinton? Not so sure there

Really?!? Whatever anyone thinks of Hilary Clinton, she's certainly not worse (by ANY metric) than Trump.