2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

3,601 to 3,650 of 7,079 << first < prev | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | next > last >>

Turin the Mad wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

1) Knight who says Meh indicated a LONG while back he wanted to talk that CU decision up -- just now getting back to it. Work, and such.

2) The gun-toting remark was for my fellow DoomCon draftees -- they were concerned about zomnados. Tornadoes are entirely too unpredictable in order to count on them for much of anything apart from tearing $#!7 up. When contending with the undead (or irradiated mutants, for that matter), i can only recommend guns, judicious marksmanship, and a high RKR.

Sorry those posts were so haphazardly posted -- been wearing three hats at work today.

Internet zombies is serious business.

OTOH, it is a surprise to find that .22LR ammunition has come into a supply shortage. Wasn't it the most prolific long-gun ammunition for what seems like forever? Color me impressed.

The shortage of .22LR has been over (in most ways) for a while now, but for at least a couple years after 2008, you were limited in most places to buying one box per person, and that's if you were supremely lucky enough to find a store that had some in stock in the first place. That's also in addition to the enormous price jump that it made. For the most part, it was due to doomsday preppers and gun-grab nut jobs going all out and buying up as much as they could.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

1) Knight who says Meh indicated a LONG while back he wanted to talk that CU decision up -- just now getting back to it. Work, and such.

2) The gun-toting remark was for my fellow DoomCon draftees -- they were concerned about zomnados. Tornadoes are entirely too unpredictable in order to count on them for much of anything apart from tearing $#!7 up. When contending with the undead (or irradiated mutants, for that matter), i can only recommend guns, judicious marksmanship, and a high RKR.

Sorry those posts were so haphazardly posted -- been wearing three hats at work today.

Internet zombies is serious business.

OTOH, it is a surprise to find that .22LR ammunition has come into a supply shortage. Wasn't it the most prolific long-gun ammunition for what seems like forever? Color me impressed.

The shortage of .22LR has been over (in most ways) for a while now, but for at least a couple years after 2008, you were limited in most places to buying one box per person, and that's if you were supremely lucky enough to find a store that had some in stock in the first place. That's also in addition to the enormous price jump that it made. For the most part, it was due to doomsday preppers and gun-grab nut jobs going all out and buying up as much as they could.

Thanks, that makes sense. From memory, it's an adaptable cartridge well suited to all kinds of needs. There are some spiffy "survival rifles" that are chambered for .22LR (or at least there were back when I was considering such a purchase).


Turin the Mad wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

1) Knight who says Meh indicated a LONG while back he wanted to talk that CU decision up -- just now getting back to it. Work, and such.

2) The gun-toting remark was for my fellow DoomCon draftees -- they were concerned about zomnados. Tornadoes are entirely too unpredictable in order to count on them for much of anything apart from tearing $#!7 up. When contending with the undead (or irradiated mutants, for that matter), i can only recommend guns, judicious marksmanship, and a high RKR.

Sorry those posts were so haphazardly posted -- been wearing three hats at work today.

Internet zombies is serious business.

OTOH, it is a surprise to find that .22LR ammunition has come into a supply shortage. Wasn't it the most prolific long-gun ammunition for what seems like forever? Color me impressed.

The shortage of .22LR has been over (in most ways) for a while now, but for at least a couple years after 2008, you were limited in most places to buying one box per person, and that's if you were supremely lucky enough to find a store that had some in stock in the first place. That's also in addition to the enormous price jump that it made. For the most part, it was due to doomsday preppers and gun-grab nut jobs going all out and buying up as much as they could.
Thanks, that makes sense. From memory, it's an adaptable cartridge well suited to all kinds of needs. There are some spiffy "survival rifles" that are chambered for .22LR (or at least there were back when I was considering such a purchase).

Yeah it's great as a varmint round, so perfect for survival settings. It's also my preferred round for plinking, since you can fire them off all day and never have to worry about your shoulder.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Unless of course you're just being snarky and my snark-detector is broken.

You think .22 long arm ammo is hard to come by, try getting replacement parts for snark-detectors. This year has been hell, overloading them Left and Right. Right now, I'm looking on a 6-week wait for parts for my Yoyodyne Worfin-8008 DeLux Snark-O-Matic. {goes back to preparing watermelon for testing}


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:


He's being compared to Hitler because of similarities in populist rhetoric, and because he's deliberately appealing to a nationalist, racist core of supporters. Very few people think it's likely he'll bring about another Nazi holocaust.

Maybe, but with the strong support he has from White Supremacists and the mainstreaming of racism, I'm pretty sure when his followers come for us darker hued people most of white America is going to stand by and deny what's happening. EVEN AS IT HAPPENS.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

1) Knight who says Meh indicated a LONG while back he wanted to talk that CU decision up -- just now getting back to it. Work, and such.

2) The gun-toting remark was for my fellow DoomCon draftees -- they were concerned about zomnados. Tornadoes are entirely too unpredictable in order to count on them for much of anything apart from tearing $#!7 up. When contending with the undead (or irradiated mutants, for that matter), i can only recommend guns, judicious marksmanship, and a high RKR.

Sorry those posts were so haphazardly posted -- been wearing three hats at work today.

Internet zombies is serious business.

OTOH, it is a surprise to find that .22LR ammunition has come into a supply shortage. Wasn't it the most prolific long-gun ammunition for what seems like forever? Color me impressed.

The shortage of .22LR has been over (in most ways) for a while now, but for at least a couple years after 2008, you were limited in most places to buying one box per person, and that's if you were supremely lucky enough to find a store that had some in stock in the first place. That's also in addition to the enormous price jump that it made. For the most part, it was due to doomsday preppers and gun-grab nut jobs going all out and buying up as much as they could.

Wouldn't something a little heavier be more useful in fighting off Zombies?

.22 is a lower caliber if I recall, so wouldn't something like a .44 or at least a .38 be better in the Zombie apocalypse?

I have swords...and I know how to use them. As long as it's the traditional slow moving Zombie, I think I could take out a few...now the horde...I'm not sure how one survives that except by running where there is no horde.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
That's why I'm bringing the guns.
I'm sure that Clinton will take twice as many guns away as Obama did.. twice zero that is.

.

As a firearm hobbyist (I hunt, target shoot, enjoy studying the subject, etc.) the "he's gon' take er guns!" nuts were both a boon and curse on the firearm industry. On the one hand, firearm related sales have skyrocketed under Obama, which is good for promoting diversity of products and because I had stock in S&W. On the other hand, it caused product shortages (I'll trade my firstborn for a box of .22LR) and price hikes.

I don't understand the "curse" part. For the industry, price hikes are a good thing, right? Just part of high demand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


He's being compared to Hitler because of similarities in populist rhetoric, and because he's deliberately appealing to a nationalist, racist core of supporters. Very few people think it's likely he'll bring about another Nazi holocaust.
Maybe, but with the strong support he has from White Supremacists and the mainstreaming of racism, I'm pretty sure when his followers come for us darker hued people most of white America is going to stand by and deny what's happening. EVEN AS IT HAPPENS.

Eh. I'm a pinko atheist lesbian. I'll be up against the wall standing right next to you.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


He's being compared to Hitler because of similarities in populist rhetoric, and because he's deliberately appealing to a nationalist, racist core of supporters. Very few people think it's likely he'll bring about another Nazi holocaust.
Maybe, but with the strong support he has from White Supremacists and the mainstreaming of racism, I'm pretty sure when his followers come for us darker hued people most of white America is going to stand by and deny what's happening. EVEN AS IT HAPPENS.

I'm pretty certain he'll come for me and mine before anyone else (considering what he's said about those of Middle Eastern descent and Asians).

I imagine most will applaud even as he does in rather loyal and patriotic Americans.


thejeff wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
That's why I'm bringing the guns.
I'm sure that Clinton will take twice as many guns away as Obama did.. twice zero that is.

.

As a firearm hobbyist (I hunt, target shoot, enjoy studying the subject, etc.) the "he's gon' take er guns!" nuts were both a boon and curse on the firearm industry. On the one hand, firearm related sales have skyrocketed under Obama, which is good for promoting diversity of products and because I had stock in S&W. On the other hand, it caused product shortages (I'll trade my firstborn for a box of .22LR) and price hikes.

I don't understand the "curse" part. For the industry, price hikes are a good thing, right? Just part of high demand.

Yeah, but sadly I'm a consumer, not a seller. Suddenly going to the range is a bit more painful in my wallet.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

1) Knight who says Meh indicated a LONG while back he wanted to talk that CU decision up -- just now getting back to it. Work, and such.

2) The gun-toting remark was for my fellow DoomCon draftees -- they were concerned about zomnados. Tornadoes are entirely too unpredictable in order to count on them for much of anything apart from tearing $#!7 up. When contending with the undead (or irradiated mutants, for that matter), i can only recommend guns, judicious marksmanship, and a high RKR.

Sorry those posts were so haphazardly posted -- been wearing three hats at work today.

Internet zombies is serious business.

OTOH, it is a surprise to find that .22LR ammunition has come into a supply shortage. Wasn't it the most prolific long-gun ammunition for what seems like forever? Color me impressed.

The shortage of .22LR has been over (in most ways) for a while now, but for at least a couple years after 2008, you were limited in most places to buying one box per person, and that's if you were supremely lucky enough to find a store that had some in stock in the first place. That's also in addition to the enormous price jump that it made. For the most part, it was due to doomsday preppers and gun-grab nut jobs going all out and buying up as much as they could.

Wouldn't something a little heavier be more useful in fighting off Zombies?

.22 is a lower caliber if I recall, so wouldn't something like a .44 or at least a .38 be better in the Zombie apocalypse?

I have swords...and I know how to use them. As long as it's the traditional slow moving Zombie, I think I could take out a few...now the horde...I'm not sure how one survives that except by running where there is no horde.

It's all about shot placement. If this were a real zombie apocalypse though, .223 would be my rifle round of choice, mostly due to the sheer quantity in existence.

Sovereign Court

Icyshadow wrote:


1) What will you do if Hillary Clinton wins?

Relax, chill, keep on keeping on. Take interest in SCOTUS news. See how HRC does leading the country. If she is inept, or falls too far right, ill take note for the next election. Overall, I agree more with HRC on policy than I do with Trump and the repubs so im guessing I will be ok with her term(s).

Icyshadow wrote:
2) What will you do if Donald Trump wins?

My prediction for a Trump presidency is that he would mirror a lot of the term Jessie Ventura served as governor in MN. The media will annoyingly focus on Trump personally, and ignore his policies. We will know more about what he had for breakfast than what he actually plans to do about trade. Both parties will finally agree on one thing, Trump is a POS that needs to go. They will band together and make life a PITA for Trump until he is out of office. Not much I can do but vote down ticket to help out the folks I think will truly suffer under this con artist.

Since folks are talking about AR-15s I can comment about my own shopping. If HRC is in i'll start looking for deals on the build I want right away. I dont think she will ban them, but she will send the crazies screaming for the shelves driving prices up. If Trump gets elected, i'll probably wait a year or two and see if prices drop.


Pan wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:


1) What will you do if Hillary Clinton wins?

Relax, chill, keep on keeping on. Take interest in SCOTUS news. See how HRC does leading the country. If she is inept, or falls too far right, ill take note for the next election. Overall, I agree more with HRC on policy than I do with Trump and the repubs so im guessing I will be ok with her term(s).

Icyshadow wrote:
2) What will you do if Donald Trump wins?

My prediction for a Trump presidency is that he would mirror a lot of the term Jessie Ventura served as governor in MN. The media will annoyingly focus on Trump personally, and ignore his policies. We will know more about what he had for breakfast than what he actually plans to do about trade. Both parties will finally agree on one thing, Trump is a POS that needs to go. They will band together and make life a PITA for Trump until he is out of office. Not much I can do but vote down ticket to help out the folks I think will truly suffer under this con artist.

Since folks are talking about AR-15s I can comment about my own shopping. If HRC is in i'll start looking for deals on the build I want right away. I dont think she will ban them, but she will send the crazies screaming for the shelves driving prices up. If Trump gets elected, i'll probably wait a year or two and see if prices drop.

If you can, I'd recommend shopping around for deals ahead of time. Even if Trump gets into office, I don't foresee prices dropping as a result. At best they'll stay the same as they are now, and at worst they'll go up due to yet more baseless speculation.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
As long as it's the traditional slow moving Zombie, I think I could take out a few...now the horde...I'm not sure how one survives that except by running where there is no horde.

Chainsaws. Better than guns or axes.

Dark Archive

Personally, .22LR maybe too prone to not penetrating the skull of a zombie. However, they are rather small and easy to carry. Best bet is 9mm for pistols as they'd be light, compact, and easy to fire in tight spaces. Believe it or not, an advancing target shambling around isn't easy to hit. The game Sate of Decay really shows this, as you may be prone to fire more off as they get dangerously close, wasting ammo and being terribly inaccurate.

With swords and knives in general, always go for something that is sturdy and can take a beating. Nothing says cheap like breaking on the first hit. Of course we are talking zombies and this is in the realm of fantasy.

Sovereign Court

Captain Battletoad wrote:
Pan wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:


1) What will you do if Hillary Clinton wins?

Relax, chill, keep on keeping on. Take interest in SCOTUS news. See how HRC does leading the country. If she is inept, or falls too far right, ill take note for the next election. Overall, I agree more with HRC on policy than I do with Trump and the repubs so im guessing I will be ok with her term(s).

Icyshadow wrote:
2) What will you do if Donald Trump wins?

My prediction for a Trump presidency is that he would mirror a lot of the term Jessie Ventura served as governor in MN. The media will annoyingly focus on Trump personally, and ignore his policies. We will know more about what he had for breakfast than what he actually plans to do about trade. Both parties will finally agree on one thing, Trump is a POS that needs to go. They will band together and make life a PITA for Trump until he is out of office. Not much I can do but vote down ticket to help out the folks I think will truly suffer under this con artist.

Since folks are talking about AR-15s I can comment about my own shopping. If HRC is in i'll start looking for deals on the build I want right away. I dont think she will ban them, but she will send the crazies screaming for the shelves driving prices up. If Trump gets elected, i'll probably wait a year or two and see if prices drop.

If you can, I'd recommend shopping around for deals ahead of time. Even if Trump gets into office, I don't foresee prices dropping as a result. At best they'll stay the same as they are now, and at worst they'll go up due to yet more baseless speculation.

Ive got some things higher on my priority list right now. I think ill take my chances after the election. Its a want, not a need.

Dark Archive

As well, why buy an AR-15. Plenty of different manufacturers that make better versions than Arma Lite. With cooler names too.

Community & Digital Content Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a couple more posts crossing over into abusive commentary. Folks, we have confidence in the ability of the participants having this conversation to be able to interact in a civil way. Take a quick gander at our Community Guidelines—we encourage that this discussion be focused on challenging ideas, not other posters. If you feel you need to vent or a comment is making you see red, take a moment away from the keyboard before responding, or perhaps it might be time to use the "hide thread" function. We'd really rather not stifle political discussion or close this thread because of back-and-forth bickering. Thanks!


ShinHakkaider wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


He's being compared to Hitler because of similarities in populist rhetoric, and because he's deliberately appealing to a nationalist, racist core of supporters. Very few people think it's likely he'll bring about another Nazi holocaust.
Maybe, but with the strong support he has from White Supremacists and the mainstreaming of racism, I'm pretty sure when his followers come for us darker hued people most of white America is going to stand by and deny what's happening. EVEN AS IT HAPPENS.

I doubt that would be true. There are at least as many heavily armed Americans of all "flavors"/colors/whatever that would stand up against such madness as would support it.


If we're talking TWD levels of infestation, or World War Z, we'd eventually run out of ammo. There was a time i would have lobbied for sharp, pointy, blady things, but my appreciation for blunt force trauma has spiked sharply. A light sledge or maul, a solid piece of hardwood (bodark!!), or the best of both with a good axe.

Chainsaws use gasoline, guns need bullets, but melee weapons just need calories and will.


Syrus Terrigan wrote:

If we're talking TWD levels of infestation, or World War Z, we'd eventually run out of ammo. There was a time i would have lobbied for sharp, pointy, blady things, but my appreciation for blunt force trauma has spiked sharply. A light sledge or maul, a solid piece of hardwood (bodark!!), or the best of both with a good axe.

Chainsaws use gasoline, guns need bullets, but melee weapons just need calories and will.

They put you in blood splatter range though. You're gonna wind up a zombie from a paper cut.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

If we're talking TWD levels of infestation, or World War Z, we'd eventually run out of ammo. There was a time i would have lobbied for sharp, pointy, blady things, but my appreciation for blunt force trauma has spiked sharply. A light sledge or maul, a solid piece of hardwood (bodark!!), or the best of both with a good axe.

Chainsaws use gasoline, guns need bullets, but melee weapons just need calories and will.

And no small amount of charm. Gotta back up that axe-work with some style or the whole thing isn't worth staying alive through. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

Meh --

What of the Citizens United ruling?

Long story, short. Citizens United wanted to run a thirty minute attack ad against Hillary Clinton in violation of campaign laws.

[note: I had more to say but it's been a long day. I wanted to post this as to not leave your question unanswered.]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

Meh --

What of the Citizens United ruling?

Long story, short. Citizens United wanted to run a thirty minute attack ad against Hillary Clinton in violation of campaign laws.

[note: I had more to say but it's been a long day. I wanted to post this as to not leave your question unanswered.]

Citizen's United is an ugly ruling, but it's actually pretty hard not to agree with the basic gist. The government was claiming that the campaign finance laws allowed prior restraint not merely on financing ads, but that it would extend to publishing books or movies promoting or attacking candidates. That's pretty serious overreach.

I think a much narrower ruling would have been better, allowing Citizens United to run the film, but not the wider gutting of campaign finance laws.
Uncharacteristically, the Court requested a second round of oral arguments, asking the plaintiffs to argue the broader case. Normally the Court prefers narrow rulings, but this time they chose to actually go broader than the original case.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
That's why I'm bringing the guns.
I'm sure that Clinton will take twice as many guns away as Obama did.. twice zero that is.

.

As a firearm hobbyist (I hunt, target shoot, enjoy studying the subject, etc.) the "he's gon' take er guns!" nuts were both a boon and curse on the firearm industry. On the one hand, firearm related sales have skyrocketed under Obama, which is good for promoting diversity of products and because I had stock in S&W. On the other hand, it caused product shortages (I'll trade my firstborn for a box of .22LR) and price hikes.

You may need to stock up then for your next battle with the gubmint, as I'm sure a Clinton victory will lead to another run on the gun stores.

"First a Darkie, now a woman is going to take away our guns!"

I've honestly contemplated stocking up early on a few popular items in the hopes of flipping them after the election (I built an AR-15 just before Obama got into office that I could have sold for three times what I paid in parts) but I think the industry has relatively peaked for the time being. I fully expect a small surge but nothing near the scale of the 2008 election.
I'd say that women don't inspire the same fear in white males that blacks do, but then again no other woman has been given the steady decades of demonification that Hillary Clinton has by the Fox machine, so who knows?
Methinks you're drawing some erroneous conclusions about what caused the gun industry to spike. Unless of course you're just being snarky and my snark-detector is broken.

Am I? It's a well known cultural fact that the election of Obama, a black President was the tipping point for a significant segment of the white male population and more guns were sold during his two terms than ever before with a really big spike occuring right after both Election Day and his inauguration. Even Obama, when asked about his intentions of confiscation pointed out that more guns were sold during his terms as President than any preceding him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


He's being compared to Hitler because of similarities in populist rhetoric, and because he's deliberately appealing to a nationalist, racist core of supporters. Very few people think it's likely he'll bring about another Nazi holocaust.
Maybe, but with the strong support he has from White Supremacists and the mainstreaming of racism, I'm pretty sure when his followers come for us darker hued people most of white America is going to stand by and deny what's happening. EVEN AS IT HAPPENS.

You mean as it's happening now?


thejeff wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

Meh --

What of the Citizens United ruling?

Long story, short. Citizens United wanted to run a thirty minute attack ad against Hillary Clinton in violation of campaign laws.

[note: I had more to say but it's been a long day. I wanted to post this as to not leave your question unanswered.]

Citizen's United is an ugly ruling, but it's actually pretty hard not to agree with the basic gist. The government was claiming that the campaign finance laws allowed prior restraint not merely on financing ads, but that it would extend to publishing books or movies promoting or attacking candidates. That's pretty serious overreach.

I think a much narrower ruling would have been better, allowing Citizens United to run the film, but not the wider gutting of campaign finance laws.
Uncharacteristically, the Court requested a second round of oral arguments, asking the plaintiffs to argue the broader case. Normally the Court prefers narrow rulings, but this time they chose to actually go broader than the original case.

Keep in mind that this time, the bulk of the supreme court WERE Republicans who were looking for an excuse to give Big Money even more control over the electoral process. That's why they wanted a broader case. They got it and made use of it in a big way.


The election of Trump as President will be the First Sign of the Apocalypse.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Am I? It's a well known cultural fact that the election of Obama, a black President was the tipping point for a significant segment of the white male population and more guns were sold during his two terms than ever before with a really big spike occuring right after both Election Day and his inauguration. Even Obama, when asked about his intentions of confiscation pointed out that more guns were sold during his terms as President than any preceding him.

OTOH, it's hard to tell how much of it was "black" and how much was just "Democrat". The rhetoric painting Democrats as gun-grabbers has ramped up so far that sales would have surged under any Democrat. The polarization is even greater than it was in Bill's terms.

We may see what happens when Hillary wins.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

Meh --

What of the Citizens United ruling?

Long story, short. Citizens United wanted to run a thirty minute attack ad against Hillary Clinton in violation of campaign laws.

[note: I had more to say but it's been a long day. I wanted to post this as to not leave your question unanswered.]

Roger that, chief. Read ya when ya get back.


after election?

If Hillary wins?

-Celebrate with a light drink if I don't work that morning, and otherwise continue on as I am doing

If Trump wins?

-Really hope that my jobs apps secure me a permanent position at a location where grant funding is not crucial for tenure, because I expect absolute gutting of the NSF under a Trump presidency.

Man, also all you zombie apocalypse preppers are going to be really annoyed when it turns out we get a wraith apocalypse instead....


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a cleric. I gots da turn undeads. Remurderizing zombies is too fun to burn 'em on, though.


Everyone has hobbies. Some are political hobbyists. Some are gaming hobbyists. Some dig survival game-caves and prepare to waste some corporeal mindless undead. The hobbies go on and on and on ...

S'long as none of 'em go 'round making zombies, what's the harm? ;)


Some insights about ISIS I found interesting - coming from a smuggled diary.

So, uh, who's planning on watching the Presidential debate? o wo


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:
Everyone has hobbies. Some are political hobbyists. Some are gaming hobbyists...

...and some, I assume, are good people.


Icyshadow wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

So, I used to think that Jill Stein might be a loon, but at least we agreed on some fairly progressive ideas. Turns out, she thinks that in the problems between the US and Russia, Putin is completely innocent and just reacting to an overmilitarized US.

While I agree that the US foreign policy is too militaristic, Russia (or rather Putin) is not the world's savior.

Jill Stein thinks that a man who has journalists assassinated is a good partner for protecting human rights.

Honestly, I don't like Putin that much myself. Russia is a very bad neighbour to have in general, and Finland has learned that pretty quickly.

Despite that, I'd rather see the US and Russia getting along than at bad relations, since that tends to lead everyone else being forced to pick a side.

So far, Clinton has mostly spoken ill of Putin from what I've seen and heard. I certainly hope it is only talk, especially now that both the US and Russia have troops in the Middle East and such.

By "getting along", do you mean "look the other way while Putin does whatever he wants"?


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Everyone has hobbies. Some are political hobbyists. Some are gaming hobbyists...
...and some, I assume, are good people.

Presumed awesome until proven otherwise in my book. Actions matter most. :)


Syrus Terrigan wrote:
Hey, everybody!! DoomCon 2016 at Seitz's place!!

I'll let people in if they promise to abide by my house rules:

1) everyone has to bring something. Even if it's a rock.

2) No one brings any sardines, anchovies, or brussel sprouts.

3) Sleeping in shifts is allow provided you all make up the schedule ahead of time.


Ah, the Jill is a Russian dupe smear.

Yevgeniya Chirikova and Nadezhda Kutepova: Open Letter to Dr. Jill Stein

Jill Stein responds to Russian environmentalists


thejeff wrote:

. The polarization is even greater than it was in Bill's terms.

We may see what happens when Hillary wins.

Then you won't be able to tell Democrat from [ferengi]female[/ferengi].


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
That's why I'm bringing the guns.
I'm sure that Clinton will take twice as many guns away as Obama did.. twice zero that is.

.

As a firearm hobbyist (I hunt, target shoot, enjoy studying the subject, etc.) the "he's gon' take er guns!" nuts were both a boon and curse on the firearm industry. On the one hand, firearm related sales have skyrocketed under Obama, which is good for promoting diversity of products and because I had stock in S&W. On the other hand, it caused product shortages (I'll trade my firstborn for a box of .22LR) and price hikes.

You may need to stock up then for your next battle with the gubmint, as I'm sure a Clinton victory will lead to another run on the gun stores.

"First a Darkie, now a woman is going to take away our guns!"

I've honestly contemplated stocking up early on a few popular items in the hopes of flipping them after the election (I built an AR-15 just before Obama got into office that I could have sold for three times what I paid in parts) but I think the industry has relatively peaked for the time being. I fully expect a small surge but nothing near the scale of the 2008 election.
I'd say that women don't inspire the same fear in white males that blacks do, but then again no other woman has been given the steady decades of demonification that Hillary Clinton has by the Fox machine, so who knows?
Methinks you're drawing some erroneous conclusions about what caused the gun industry to spike. Unless of course you're just being snarky and my snark-detector is broken.
Am I? It's a well known cultural fact that the election of Obama, a black President was the tipping point for a significant segment of the white male population and more guns were sold during his two terms than ever before...

You're bringing up his race as if it's inherently relevant to the issue being discussed. While that's probably true for some small segment of the group, I argue that it's by no means the dominant cause. The reason for the spike in gun buying was due to a combination of him being a DEMOCRAT (which is way more relevant to the people prone to hoarding firearms than his race) and the massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Then I guess one metric we could use to prove or disprove this theory is to examine the gun purchase rate under previous Democratic Presidents. Does it always go up? Does it go up at the same rate? How do those numbers compare to the gun purchase rate under previous Republican Presidents?


Misroi wrote:
Then I guess one metric we could use to prove or disprove this theory is to examine the gun purchase rate under previous Democratic Presidents. Does it always go up? Does it go up at the same rate? How do those numbers compare to the gun purchase rate under previous Republican Presidents?

Given that you'd be severely lacking in control factors, that wouldn't be a terribly accurate metric. Was public opinion on guns the same under Obama as it was under Bill, or Jimmy Carter, or JFK?


Also relevant are the spikes that occur after each publicly aware shooting, during the ensuing discourse on gun control legislation over the past 20-odd years with the passage of the 'Brady Bill' and leading up to the date such bills go 'live'. I'm guessing there will be even more at the state level, depending on the state, ex: CA, CT.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
You're bringing up his race as if it's inherently relevant to the issue being discussed. While that's probably true for some small segment of the group, I argue that it's by no means the dominant cause. The reason for the spike in gun buying was due to a combination of him being a DEMOCRAT (which is way more relevant to the people prone to hoarding firearms than his race) and the massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse.

What "massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse"? At least for the first spike in 2008.

There wasn't really much public discourse about it until after Newton.

Except for people in the gun community/business panicking over a Democrat taking guns. Obama certainly didn't focus on it.


Misroi wrote:
Then I guess one metric we could use to prove or disprove this theory is to examine the gun purchase rate under previous Democratic Presidents. Does it always go up? Does it go up at the same rate? How do those numbers compare to the gun purchase rate under previous Republican Presidents?

There aren't a lot of data points. The divide on this really only started under Clinton - the Brady bill was pretty much the start of the modern "Democrats are gun-grabbers" narrative.

There weren't the same spikes under Bush as under Obama and that's really all there is to say.


thejeff wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
You're bringing up his race as if it's inherently relevant to the issue being discussed. While that's probably true for some small segment of the group, I argue that it's by no means the dominant cause. The reason for the spike in gun buying was due to a combination of him being a DEMOCRAT (which is way more relevant to the people prone to hoarding firearms than his race) and the massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse.

What "massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse"? At least for the first spike in 2008.

There wasn't really much public discourse about it until after Newton.

Except for people in the gun community/business panicking over a Democrat taking guns. Obama certainly didn't focus on it.

Virginia Tech happened 5 years before Newtown, Fort Hood was 3 years before, and the Gabby Giffords shooting in Tucson was the year before, each of which put a pretty heavy spotlight on gun ownership in news broadcasts and in public discourse. I didn't say that Obama focused on it, but rather that the people who ended up causing the spike in gun sales (meaning the people doing the panic-buying) were afraid that he would. Whether or not the fear was well founded is irrelevant and an entirely separate issue (it clearly wasn't).

*Edit: "Gun ownership" not "Fun ownership"


Wikipedia article on gun control politics in the US.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
You're bringing up his race as if it's inherently relevant to the issue being discussed. While that's probably true for some small segment of the group, I argue that it's by no means the dominant cause. The reason for the spike in gun buying was due to a combination of him being a DEMOCRAT (which is way more relevant to the people prone to hoarding firearms than his race) and the massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse.

What "massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse"? At least for the first spike in 2008.

There wasn't really much public discourse about it until after Newton.

Except for people in the gun community/business panicking over a Democrat taking guns. Obama certainly didn't focus on it.

Virginia Tech happened 5 years before Newtown, Fort Hood was 3 years before, and the Gabby Giffords shooting in Tucson was the year before, each of which put a pretty heavy spotlight on fun ownership in news broadcasts and in public discourse. I didn't say that Obama focused on it, but rather that the people who ended up causing the spike in gun sales (meaning the people doing the panic-buying) were afraid that he would. Whether or not the fear was well founded is irrelevant and an entirely separate issue (it clearly wasn't).

Well, VT was in Bush's term. There was no spike in sales then.

The spike in 2009 precedes Fort Hood and seems more closely tied to the election than anything else.

Once in Obama's administration, the other shootings didn't seem to provoke additional spikes, until Sandy Hook in the end of 2012, which is when Democrats really started talking about gun control again, pushed by public opinion. It also coincided with Obama's re-election.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
You're bringing up his race as if it's inherently relevant to the issue being discussed. While that's probably true for some small segment of the group, I argue that it's by no means the dominant cause. The reason for the spike in gun buying was due to a combination of him being a DEMOCRAT (which is way more relevant to the people prone to hoarding firearms than his race) and the massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse.

What "massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse"? At least for the first spike in 2008.

There wasn't really much public discourse about it until after Newton.

Except for people in the gun community/business panicking over a Democrat taking guns. Obama certainly didn't focus on it.

Virginia Tech happened 5 years before Newtown, Fort Hood was 3 years before, and the Gabby Giffords shooting in Tucson was the year before, each of which put a pretty heavy spotlight on fun ownership in news broadcasts and in public discourse. I didn't say that Obama focused on it, but rather that the people who ended up causing the spike in gun sales (meaning the people doing the panic-buying) were afraid that he would. Whether or not the fear was well founded is irrelevant and an entirely separate issue (it clearly wasn't).

Yes, but the people doing the panic buying were also the ones who believed Obama to be a secret muslim who wasn't born in the US and thus couldn't legitimately serve as president. I myself am a gun owner, and cannot accept that there's a not-to-one correlation between gun owners and racist. I absolutely don't.

However, we're living in a time when the Republican candidate for president waited until last f**king week to state that he didn't believe the birther conspiracy. I don't see how you can deny Obama's race being a factor in any criticism of him at this point.

That reads like I'm saying you can't disagree with his policies without being a racist. I'm not. I just think there's a huge difference between disagreeing with his policies and panic buying guns, and that you have to buy into the race based paranoia narrative to make panic buying seem reasonable.

Also, selling an AR-15 at a high price because the panic buyers are willing to pay a 1000% mark up is just good business sense, not paranoia on your part.

3,601 to 3,650 of 7,079 << first < prev | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards