Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Matchles]

Erg, as much as I want to jump on this, Illinois isn't an open-carry state, so he might actually be right on this. I assume if the frisked person had a legal CC license or what not, the gun would not be taken.

Why not? Trump is actually saying the sort of gun confiscation policies that the conspiracy theorists say Clinton believes in private and will implement if she gets into power. Let's also remember that the Chicago portion was a walk back. It was a national policy he was pushing. As it is now, it doesn't make sense, a president implements policy for a nation, not a single city.

[TZucchini]

I found this to be interesting and thought others would as well.

What Do the Presidential Candidates Know about Science?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar..._Twitter-Share

I skipped right to the vaccination section. Trump's response was:

"We should educate the public on the values of a comprehensive vaccination program."

That's a pretty rich statement from someone that thinks vaccines can cause autism...

"Just the other day, 2 years old, 2½ years old, a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic."

[Breccia]

I found this to be interesting and thought others would as well.

My favorites are:

"Donald Trump (R): The United States government should not spy on its own citizens. That will not happen in a Trump administration. "
But stopping and frisking suspicious people is apparently okay.

"Donald Trump: We should educate the public on the values of a comprehensive vaccination program. We have been successful with other public service programs and this seems to be of enough importance that we should put resources against this task."
purl=http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2015/09/20/donald-trump-spouts-dangerous-anti-vaccine-nonsense-ben-carsons-response-is-worse/#794a65281bd5]Trump is an anti-vaxxer[/url]. He's been exceedingly clear on the subject. So this is yet another flip-flop in recent times to add to the list, or he's flat-out lying about his answer. Neither is a redeeming trait.

EDIT: Dammit! Ninjaed!

"Donald Trump (R): This may be the most important issue we face as a nation for the next generation. Therefore, we must make the investment in our fresh water infrastructure to ensure access to affordable fresh water solutions for everyone. We must explore all options to include making desalinization more affordable and working to build the distribution infrastructure to bring this scarce resource to where it is needed for our citizens and those who produce the food of the world. This must be a top priority for my administration."
I had literally no idea Trump viewed clean water as such an important topic. I'm serious. I have never seen this come up in his work to date. He said this basically twice, too. Why isn't he using this in his speeches? Seriously, who the hell would be against clean drinking water?

But the best ever:

"Gary Johnson (L): This candidate has not yet responded."

[TZucchini]

At least his answer on climate change is consistent:

Donald Trump (R): There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of “climate change.”

There's really no reason to put parenthesis around the word climate change. Unless you think it's a hoax invented by the Chinese.

[Breccia]

Why not?

I was being as charitable as possible to Trump based on his incredibly vague response. It sounded, to me at least, like he was suggesting taking guns being carried illegally if found in the search. Obviously, this does nothing to address the search is likely unconstitutional in the first place, but I have no problem with illegal guns being seized, if the seizure itself was legal.

That's a lot of ifs;, but then, Trump's statement was not very specific. Plus, yes, heavily-implied walkback.

[DocSavageFan]

I skipped right to the vaccination section. Trump's response was:

"We should educate the public on the values of a comprehensive vaccination program."

That's a pretty rich statement from someone that thinks vaccines can cause autism...

"Just the other day, 2 years old, 2½ years old, a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic."

Weren't there conflicting studies regarding this issue and it really wasn't settled definitively until the last few years?

[PACOX]

What Trump has to say about science doesn't matter because 50% of his voter base doesn't believe in science.

[DocSavageFan]

What Trump has to say about science doesn't matter because 50% of his voter base doesn't believe in science.

Derp.

/10char

[Kujako]

Weren't there conflicting studies regarding this issue and it really wasn't settled definitively until the last few years?

Not really...

[TZucchini]

Weren't there conflicting studies regarding this issue and it really wasn't settled definitively until the last few years?

I believe there was one study, which was discredited, and the doctor lost his license. That happened in 2010.

Trump's statement happened during a debate in 2016.

[DocSavageFan]

Not really...

Well then...I guess my wife who's worked with autistic children for the past 20 years doesn't know jack shit compared to you. There was a long time where this was believed or suspected to be true. Obviously not the case...but it's not an uncommon belief.

[Kujako]

Well then...I guess my wife who's worked with autistic children for the past 20 years doesn't know jack shit compared to you.

If she thinks autism is caused by vaccines, then yea...

[Edge-]

Well then...I guess my wife who's worked with autistic children for the past 20 years doesn't know jack shit compared to you. There was a long time where this was believed or suspected to be true. Obviously not the case...but it's not an uncommon belief.

Compared to the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that shows no link between the two...yeah. I mean, no insult to your wife, but the data does not back her up in the slightest on this.

[DocSavageFan]

If she thinks autism is caused by vaccines, then yea...

She doesn't, then no...

[Kujako]

She doesn't, then no...

Then what in the name of Kabbalah Monster are you talking about?

[DocSavageFan]

Compared to the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that shows no link between the two...yeah. I mean, no insult to your wife, but the data does not back her up in the slightest on this.

She never advocated that it was caused by vaccines....but she's intimately aware of many people with autistic kids over the years who did believe it until relatively recently.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Derp.

/10char

Sorry that your party has been found to have a high tendency to deny proven science. Such as climate change. And evolution. And the Big Bang. And the safety of vaccines.

Maybe instead of derping you should try to elect candidates that aren't scientifically impaired.

[Breccia]

Weren't there conflicting studies regarding this issue a

No. That is not true. There was one study that was redacted so hard, the author lost his medical license for publishing the study.

- - - Updated - - -

There was a long time where this was believed or suspected to be true.

There really wasn't. At least, not by people who actually knew what they were talking about.

[LaserSharkDFB]

There really wasn't.

And even if there was, that wouldn't make the belief true or even reasonable.

[DocSavageFan]

Sorry that your party has been found to have a high tendency to deny proven science. Such as climate change. And evolution. And the Big Bang. And the safety of vaccines.

Maybe instead of derping you should try to elect candidates that aren't scientifically impaired.

Let me clear something up for you...I'm a person, not part of some collective monolithic consciousness as you may well imagine. And as such, please address me directly instead of holding up contrived strawmen as if they somehow represent anything relevant in the scheme of things. Sure there are "anti-science" people who are Republicans. But there are also "anti-science" people that are Democrats as well. And what the fuck does that prove? Nothing..at least to anyone who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together.