Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Ghostpanther]

[QUOTE=Packers01;41958577]

I think I do. Gun rights is a Constitutional right. We do not need stronger and more gun control laws, what we need is stronger enforcement of the laws we already have. Banning AR 15's is not going to have a significant impact on gun deaths. It would only restrict the law aiding citizens from having one and I think they should have that right. Now one can debate that I know. And the Gun Control mega thread is one which does discuss it in more detail and if you are really interested, check it out.[/QUOT

So what is Trumps stance? Do nothing?

Not to have more gun control laws than we already have. I agree with that.

- - - Updated - - -

So when Trump said that "only certain people" should be allowed to carry guns, did you agree with him then, or only after he totally changed his position to get the NRA endorsement? Or are you believing Trump when he says that Hillary wants to repeal the 2nd amendment, despite there being absolutely nothing that backs that up? Every four years, the NRA tells you that the Democrats are coming for your guns, and every time it never happens. You would think you could figure out by now that they're just trying to sell more guns...

Only certain people should. There are laws in every state which does restrict it. I do not think Hillary will try to repeal something which even she knows is not feasible. The NRA is suppose to stand up for gun rights and fight against any movement which would not allow lawful citizens to choose which non mass destructive weapon they can have. They are not for allowing people to have fully functional/armed to the teeth tanks.

[Kujako]

The NRA is suppose to stand up for gun rights and fight against any movement which would not allow lawful citizens to choose which non mass destructive weapon they can have. They are not for allowing people to have fully functional/armed to the teeth tanks.

The NRA hasn't been that in decades. They are now a lobby group for gun makers.

[Shalcker]

The good news is democracy at work won the day and another pro-soviet union Putin agent will never find work or a political ear in this country again.

Haha, never say never.

[Pangean]

I do not think Hillary will try to repeal something which even she knows is not feasible.

So Trump is lying when he claims she: "wants to abolish the Second Amendment."?

[Ghostpanther]

[QUOTE=Packers01;41958686]

Okay how about healthcare? I mean, with specifics like this I can see why you like the plan “Obamacare. We’re going to repel it, we’re going to replace it, get something great. Repeal it, replace it, get something great!”

Obamacare is a disaster. Sure it has helped some. But at a very, very high cost. It needs to be repealed and replaced with a single payer system. Not a perfect answer, but would be much better than what we have now. So to that extent I do support his stance.

He has said in interviews he really wants to have national health care, but understands the chances of getting it is not realistic due to the present political system.

Personally I think we need to do what Indiana has done. Which was come up with alternative to Obamacare ( which they got approval to do so ) which provides health care at a very low cost to the poor. And they did that and still managed to balance the State budget.

[DeadmanWalking]

[QUOTE=Ghostpanther;41958594]

Not to have more gun control laws than we already have. I agree with that.

- - - Updated - - -



Only certain people should. There are laws in every state which does restrict it. I do not think Hillary will try to repeal something which even she knows is not feasible. The NRA is suppose to stand up for gun rights and fight against any movement which would not allow lawful citizens to choose which non mass destructive weapon they can have. They are not for allowing people to have fully functional/armed to the teeth tanks.

The NRA's job is to terrify the citizens of this nation into fearing that they will lose their guns so citizens keep giving them money so the NRA can keep pouring money on Washington to keep gun control laws out. The NRA doesn't allow washington to pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of people on terrorist watchlists because 'any laws stopping anyone from getting guns snowballs into everyone losing guns'.

If they are not beating the fear drums the money flow slows and politicians stop giving them seats at the big boy table.

[Ghostpanther]

This, at least be honest.

Na. It is not being honest when you disagree with something. The NRA was really started to help people train and get better with rifles esp. For the most part for decades, they were a organization which was for sport hunting and target shooting. Even today, they offer training for proper firearm usage. But granted, they do lobby for gun rights strongly now.

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=DeadmanWalking;41958849]

The NRA's job is to terrify the citizens of this nation into fearing that they will lose their guns so citizens keep giving them money so the NRA can keep pouring money on Washington to keep gun control laws out. The NRA doesn't allow washington to pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of people on terrorist watchlists because 'any laws stopping anyone from getting guns snowballs into everyone losing guns'.

If they are not beating the fear drums the money flow slows and politicians stop giving them seats at the big boy table.

Funny. I do not have fear I will lose my guns. And I am not a member of the NRA. But I do support what they stand for. But I do have concerns Hillary will put in motion acts/bills which can hinder law abiding citizens to have firearms. Not so much for myself, but others and those in the future. Ones which we do not need. And like a snow ball rolling down the hill, only takes a small one to become a big one.

[Cthulhu 2020]

But granted, they do lobby for gun rights strongly now.

Yeah, if only they lobbied for citizen's rights. :P

[Pangean]

Obamacare is a disaster. Sure it has helped some. But at a very, very high cost. It needs to be repealed and replaced with a single payer system. Not a perfect answer, but would be much better than what we have now. So to that extent I do support his stance.

He has said in interviews he really wants to have national health care, but understands the chances of getting it is not realistic due to the present political system.

Personally I think we need to do what Indiana has done. Which was come up with alternative to Obamacare ( which they got approval to do so ) which provides health care at a very low cost to the poor. And they did that and still managed to balance the State budget.

His stance is not single payer. It used to be before but now it's the usual nonsense GOP garbage about healthcare. So I predict an actual change on your views to magically appear.

Indiana is required by law to have a balanced state budget. And they managed to maintain that because the federal government is paying for Pence's program since it's an expansion of Medicaid not an alternative to the ACA. Obamacare exists in Indiana except the Fed's run the program as opposed to the State.

I suggest you actually look into what is occurring before speaking on issues and save yourself some embarrassment.

[Ghostpanther]

Yeah, if only they lobbied for citizen's rights. :P

I am sure you would agree that law abiding citizens should have the rights granted under the Constitution.

[mvaliz]

Oh jees... Ghostpather just broke out the assanine "slippery slope" argument. >_<

Meanwhile, Australians and people from England read what you post and shake their heads...

So, you want "stricter laws", but "no laws that effect gun purchases"? Can you give us an example of said alternative? Cuz I don't think you can.

[DeadmanWalking]

As far as Trumps gun policies go, in 2012 he tweeted that Obama had 'spoken for me and every Ameican' in his remarks at a vigil for the Newton School Shooting victims, and now he accuses Obama and Clinton of plotting to undermine the constitution.

He also feels that if people in the orlando bar had guns they could of stopped the killing, when the NRA came down on him he changed it to 'guards and employees had guns, Trump got attacked by the NRA for suggesting that people on no fly lists, and terror watch lists should not have guns.

In 2000, in his book, The America We Deserve" he supported a 1994 federal assult weapons ban. In 2015 he says bans are an absolute failure.

In May he said he did not want weapons in classrooms but then said he wanted teachers and guards to have guns, which contridicts the ideal of 'not wanting weapons in classrooms'.

Then during a meeting with the NRA he changed his stance on no fly lists to be 'maybe' as they explained to him people on no fly lists may not belong on them and they lose their constitutional rights.

Donalds stances on anything change based on which powerful entity tells him he can't do that and be president.

[Fadeslol]

[QUOTE=Packers01;41958577]

I think I do. Gun rights is a Constitutional right. We do not need stronger and more gun control laws, what we need is stronger enforcement of the laws we already have. Banning AR 15's is not going to have a significant impact on gun deaths. It would only restrict the law aiding citizens from having one and I think they should have that right. Now one can debate that I know. And the Gun Control mega thread is one which does discuss it in more detail and if you are really interested, check it out.[/QUOT

So what is Trumps stance? Do nothing?

You haven't done your research on Trump then.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positio...endment-rights

1 thing is National CCW, another is fixing the mental health system

[Pangean]

New Trump, same as the old Trump.

Trump’s ugly and dishonest new TV ad shows he isn’t changing a thing

THE MORNING PLUM:

Last night, Donald Trump delivered a speech in which he spoke in soothing tones about the need to unify the country and expressed “regret” about any remarks that have caused “personal pain,” though he didn’t specify which particular remarks he regrets. This led some commentators to suggest that another “pivot” is underway.

This morning, Trump released his first general election ad, an ugly and dishonest production which shows he isn’t changing a thing.

In fact, the new ad is filled with precisely the same sort of dark, dystopian themes and content — and even some of the same sort of grainy, dark footage depicting illegal immigrants as invaders — that marked one of the first ads he ran during the GOP primaries.

NBC News, which first broke the story of the ad, reports that it is backed by a $4 million buy and will run for 10 days in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina. (It’s noteworthy that Trump is on defense in North Carolina and is spending sums there comparable to the amounts in these other must-win states. If he loses North Carolina, there probably is no path.)

Now note how similar this new general election ad is to the one Trump ran all the way back in January in Iowa and New Hampshire, setting the themes with which he would successfully appeal to GOP primary voters:

Trump’s ad in the primaries depicted the main problems facing the country as illegal immigration and terrorism, featuring dark, grainy footage of illegal immigrants streaming into the country while vowing to “Make America Great Again.”

Trump’s first general election ad depicts the main problems facing the country as illegal immigration and terrorism, featuring dark, grainy footage of illegal immigrants streaming into the country while vowing to “Make America Safe Again.”

In one respect, the new ad also goes further in its demagoguery than the original GOP primary ad did — it claims that the border is “open.” Broadly speaking, the new Trump ad echoes some of the ugliest elements of the picture Trump’s convention speech painted of what ails America and what must be done about it — a speech that may have further alienated some of the voter groups he needs to expand his appeal among if he is to turn around his slide.

Fun, revealing footnote: The new Trump ad, like the one he ran during the GOP primaries, has unmistakable parallels with the immigration ad that GOP Governor Pete Wilson ran in California in the mid 1990s that also depicted our borders overrun with dark hordes. As E.J. Dionne reports in his book on American conservatism, some Republicans see eerie parallels between the California GOP’s decline amid a failure to adapt to the state’s ongoing demographic changes, and the national party’s current failure to adapt to similar demographic changes sweeping the whole country — not to mention the impact they are having on national elections.

Now the GOP nominee is using a very, er, Wilsonian approach — two decades later, and in a general election.

See the article at for the video's referenced: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.3f64a2000034

[Ghostpanther]

[QUOTE=Fadeslol;41959025]

You haven't done your research on Trump then.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positio...endment-rights

1 thing is National CCW, another is fixing the mental health system

Which I agree with those. A gun CCP in one state, should apply across all state lines. And the mental health checks and such should be improved. I mean, I am ok with the present laws we have and then stronger enforcement of them. But thanks for pointing those two out.

[Fadeslol]

[QUOTE=Ghostpanther;41959056]

Which I agree with those. A gun CCP in one state, should apply across all state lines. And the mental health checks and such should be improved.

Yup, we have too many unconstitutional gun laws atm

[Kujako]

I am sure you would agree that law abiding citizens should have the rights granted under the Constitution.

The Constitution, as currently interpreted, says I have the right under the 2nd amendment to stockpile weaponized anthrax. Most people think this should be limited, opinions differ only on where the limits should be.

[Fadeslol]

The Constitution, as currently interpreted, says I have the right under the 2nd amendment to stockpile weaponized anthrax. Most people think this should be limited, opinions differ only on where the limits should be.

If the Govt can stockpile, then the people can. No ones business but yours.

[Kujako]

If the Govt can stockpile, then the people can. No ones business but yours.

Which is why I said MOST people are in favor of limits. Some other people are just nuts.

[Ghostpanther]

As far as Trumps gun policies go, in 2012 he tweeted that Obama had 'spoken for me and every Ameican' in his remarks at a vigil for the Newton School Shooting victims, and now he accuses Obama and Clinton of plotting to undermine the constitution.

He also feels that if people in the orlando bar had guns they could of stopped the killing, when the NRA came down on him he changed it to 'guards and employees had guns, Trump got attacked by the NRA for suggesting that people on no fly lists, and terror watch lists should not have guns.

In 2000, in his book, The America We Deserve" he supported a 1994 federal assult weapons ban. In 2015 he says bans are an absolute failure.

In May he said he did not want weapons in classrooms but then said he wanted teachers and guards to have guns, which contridicts the ideal of 'not wanting weapons in classrooms'.

Then during a meeting with the NRA he changed his stance on no fly lists to be 'maybe' as they explained to him people on no fly lists may not belong on them and they lose their constitutional rights.

Donalds stances on anything change based on which powerful entity tells him he can't do that and be president.

Which tells me like all humans, he has been wrong at times and also has changed his stance on some issues.