Trump is winning

[Vergil]

Keep your dirty socialist mitts off my guns you fucking yuropoors.

 

[Ilosar]

Keep your dirty socialist mitts off my guns you fucking yuropoors.

Meh, you can keep your guns. I personally have little interest in them, but don't really have a horse in this race either. Only thing that should be done is effective background checks; if you're on something akin to a no-fly list, or have any history of being mentally unbalanced or what have you, you should not be able to buy a gun. The NRA actually supports a similar position, if memory serves.

 

[CT Phipps]

Didn't the Founding Fathers found an un-democratic system because they feared that the average stupid commoner would vote for a clown and ruin the country, hence they put a disproportionate amount of power in the hands of a few politically experienced men? I may be talking out of my ass here.

They also hated each other and had very different views on how the country should be.

 

[Vergil]

They also hated each other and had very different views on how the country should be.

They had their disagreements but hated eachother?

Also I find it kind of funny (read: horrifying) how readily some people are to just throw out the Constitution and what our founders said in regards to the formation and continuation of the country.

 

[CT Phipps]

They had their disagreements but hated eachother?

Dude, Aaron Burr killed Hamilton.

Also I find it kind of funny (read: horrifying) how readily some people are to just throw out the Constitution and what our founders said in regards to the formation and continuation of the country.

No, we just believe it's a living document.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Imagine if dueling would be still allowed.

Also I find it kind of funny (read: horrifying) how readily some people are to just throw out the Constitution and what our founders said in regards to the formation and continuation of the country.

I know, I know, not exactly the same and hyperbole. And you don't mean it like that. But I just find it funny to think some 150 years back.
I am sure some people had the exact same thought when they changed that thing with slavery in the constitution ...

The greeks have a nice saying, societies that don't change, eventually stagnate and die.

 

[Vergil]

Dude, Aaron Burr killed Hamilton.

That doesn't mean you can just apply the blanket term "the founding fathers hated eachother" because of one duel and some of them having disagreements.

No, we just believe it's a living document.

Documents don't breathe.

I am sure some people had the exact same thought when they changed that thing with slavery in the constitution ...

Then those people didn't know what they were talking about as slavery was never listed as a Constitutional right.

The greeks have a nice saying, societies that don't change, eventually stagnate and die.

That's why we have the (not always used well) amendment process but the first 10 amendments are the most important and should never be trampled on.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Then those people didn't know what they were talking about as slavery was never listed as a Constitutional right.

*shrugs*
There was quite a hefty war because of that 'right' to own slaves. You might have heard about it :p.

 

[Vergil]

*shrugs*
There was quite a hefty war because of that 'right' to own slaves. You might have heard about it :p.

*There was quite a hefty war because of State's rights. You might have heard about it :p
FTFY

 

[Crni Vuk]

I never claimed that it was a part of the constitution. I am just saying changes can happen. How likely they are? That's of course a whole different matter. But who knows what might be in 50 or 100 or 150 years. Maybe we would see another civil war then? Who knows. I mean there is after all a legal procedure to make changes, even in this case. I mean let us assume, for the sake of this argument, the legal requirements for a change of the second amendment would all be met, what do you think would happen? What would you do? Would you grab a gun and fight the government? - Again I am not saying this is likely or even a good thing. I am just curious.

 

[Vergil]

I never claimed that it was a part of the constitution. I am just saying changes can happen. How likely they are? That's of course a whole different matter. But who knows what might be in 50 or 100 or 150 years. Maybe we would see another civil war then? Who knows. I mean there is after all a legal procedure to make changes, even such heavy like this one. I mean let us assume, for the sake of this argument, the legal requirements for a change of the second amendment would be met, what would you think would happen? What would you do? Would you grab a gun and fight the government? - Again I am not saying this is likely or even a good thing. I am just curious.

Well the Bill of Rights has been doing just fine for the last 250 years so I'm not too worried about that.

what would you think would happen? What would you do? Would you grab a gun and fight the government? - Again I am not saying this is likely or even a good thing. I am just curious.

I can't really say. I'd certainly hope that if the United States got that corrupt to that point we'd be looking at another Civil War. It's hard to say what I'd personally do because big changes like that are usually preceded by a whole lot of other shit beforehand.

What would you do if the 4th Reich started cropping up around you?

Then again, I prefer Hamilton to 1776.

It's a shame Burr didn't take out Hamilton sooner tbh.

 

[CT Phipps]

The Founding Fathers are a much cooler group of people than a lot of people give them credit for. I'm personally a fan of Charles Lee and dislike how he was treated by George Washington (and yes, he wasn't a Founding Father but was close). The FF couldn't agree on anything, which is why they tossed out the 'original' American government in order to make a new one almost as soon as the paper was dry. They didn't agree on who should be able to vote, slavery, and were constantly feuding over everything from the banking system of the United States to taxation as well as the powers of the government.

Then again, I prefer Hamilton to 1776.

 

[Crni Vuk]

What would you do if the 4th Reich started cropping up around you?

Considering that Germany is a nation that has weapon onwnership not as a part of it's constitution and a very difficult process to get weapons, I find that a bit offensive! *I am not serious here, but I am just saying, hyperbole much? :p

 

[Vergil]

Considering that Germany is a nation that has weapon onwnership not as a part of it's constitution and a very difficult process to get weapons, I find that a bit offensive! *I am not serious here, but I am just saying, hyperbole much? :p

I wasn't focusing on weapon ownership specifically but I mean't seeing something that's a fundamental part of the nation like one of the Bill of Rights being taken away is just as extreme and out there to me as Germany becoming great again forming the 4th Reich.

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

Nice straw man, dude.
"Look! There are lazy fucks out there! So how do you feel about helping them!"

Studies show, that most poor people actually have jobs and are not lazy.

Just because you have a job doesn't mean that you're not lazy.

In the sense, that you can not simply eliminate poverity with the idea that "Those guys made it out of it, so everyone can". Just beacuse some people become succesfull for example, doesn't mean that everyone can, regardless how much they work or how skilled they are.

You can't eliminate poverty, period. What you can do is increase living standards for the poor. And the system which preforms best in that regard is lassiez-faire capitalism.

"Survivorship bias, or survival bias, is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility."

Since you're blaming poverty pretty much entirely on the poor, this is your logical error.

No, that's not what survivorship bias is. I'm not saying that everyone magically becomes rich in capitalism, nor should they. You just can't seem to understand that not everyone is an egalitarian.

Strange that almost every service that leaves the 'paws' of the governemnts is seeing a tremendious increase in price. So much, that you even see those services returning into public hands. Like water supply in Paris, France.

There are simply certain goods, to speak so, that remain in public hands trough the government simply because a purely profit oriented company isn't always making the best decisions.

Why water is a public service :
exposing the myths of privatization
​

4. Efficiency and performance

Supporters of privatisation claim that private companies are more efficient than the public
sector, and many people believe this. But the empirical evidence shows this is not true. There have been many studies comparing the efficiency of public sector and private water companies in various countries, and a comprehensive review by academics in 2008 concluded that “most studies found no significant differences in costs or efficiency between public and private”. A detailed study in the UK - the biggest water privatisation - showed that, 11 years after privatisation, the private water companies had actually become less efficient than the public sector had been, despite having access to better technology.

http://www.right2water.eu/sites/water/files/u/u4/20022012-epsuwater.pdf

Not everything becomes inherently better, just beacuse it's out of public hand.

Since the pdf itself contains absolutely nothing in terms of evidence, and its sources are papers that have to be paid for (and not cheap either), I don't find it very credible. The source for the situation in France says in its description that it looks at Public-Private Partnerships (that's very different from outright privatization).

As for the UK thing, it's terribly cherry-picked if not an outright lie.

According to data from Ofwat, service quality and efficiency has improved from the early 1990s until 2010 in the following ways:

• Drinking water quality, as measured by the compliance with iron levels and coliform bacteria in service reservoirs, has improved substantially from 1996 to 2010.[5]
• Network pressure has improved substantially: The share or "properties at risk of low pressure" declined from 1.33% in 1990-95 0.01% in 2009-10.[6]
• Supply interruptions have declined: The share of properties subject to unplanned supply interruptions of 12 hours or more declined from 0.33% to 0.06% during the same period.[6]
• The number of written complaints not responded to within ten working days has declined from 21% to less than 1%.[6]
• leakage has been reduced from 5,112 megaliters per day in 1994-95 to less than 3,281 megaliters per day in 2009-10 (the measuring method of two companies has changed over the period, so the actual reduction is even higher)[7]

It's just as a side note, to show that if you want to fight poverity, then you have to increase low wages, at least so much that people can actually get out of poverity, trough work. As I said, most 'poor' people in the US, actually do have a job.

Maybe they could do that if the government wasn't stealing a third of their income.

Never said that. I said that high quality education has to be affordable and available to all of the public. I didn't specificy about what kind of education or system we're talking about. I mean education in general. Access to good education should not be a question of how much money/wealth you possess. If anything it should depend on your abilities, if you have what it takes to study a certain topic, like physics, math or what ever. This is what we're should be looking for, in recognizing, promoting and developing the individual talents and preferences people have. Because a healthy society needs artists, as much as it needs scientists, engineers and craftsman.

>never said that
>goes on to say exactly that

Then again, there's debate on what they wanted. I mean the gun laws at the time were obviously centered on militias, but now they're used as an excuse for private ownership and there are groups who think the founding fathers were more religious and wanted a country based off Christianity.

 

[Crossfire]

Imagine if dueling would be still allowed.

On a completely unrelated note, I am 100% in support of some kind of mutual combat law.

How do y'all feel about that?

 

[Jogre]

On a completely unrelated note, I am 100% in support of some kind of mutual combat law.

How do y'all feel about that?

That sounds like it could very easily be abused.

Like, what if someone blackmailed you in to fighting them by saying they'd harm your family or something.

It seems a bit dangerous tbh.

 

[Crossfire]

That sounds like it could very easily be abused.

Like, what if someone blackmailed you in to fighting them by saying they'd harm your family or something.

It seems a bit dangerous tbh.

Seattle has mutual combat laws so it's not like it's completely unprecedented. I'm sure it has it's flaws but I think it creates an opportunity for people to settle grievances in a lawful manner as oppose to having people subvert the law to do so, which tends to dramatically escalate things.

 

[Ilosar]

Seattle has mutual combat laws so it's not like it's completely unprecedented. I'm sure it has it's flaws but I think it creates an opportunity for people to settle grievances in a lawful manner as oppose to having people subvert the law to do so, which tends to dramatically escalate things.

Think the problem is that it then becomes endemic. I know France (in the 19th century, admitedly) had duels solve everything, but they eventually figured out that between people who cheated, people who died by mistake or malicious design, people who simply went overboard, and people generally being stupid, it caused way more problems than it could ever solve.

There's probably enough violence in America without trying to add to it, just sayin'.

 

[Hassknecht]

This is somewhat interesting. Somebody looked into the whole "Trump loves Putin" deal. Apparently Trump, due to his many business failures and huge debt load, is blacklisted by almost every major american bank (the Deutsche Bank still deals with him, and they're failing) so he's kinda reliant on russian money sources.
Also, top kek no. 2, all new Trump hotels will be named "Scion" now instead of "Trump" as apparently the name is not that great of a brand anymore.

Interestingly though, according to Reuters, despite more republicans being suspicious of the validity of the election, more democrats are apparently prepared to take up arms if the election doesn't go their way.