Trump Will Win In 2020 #DT2020

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

You are cottoning on as to how things work in the USA!  Congrats!

A lot of washrooms are probably overdue for renovations.

My former lab was built when essentially all scientists were male.  The men's washroom had 4 urinals and two stalls; the women's washroom was a single toilet. They ripped them out and made three equal-sized washrooms (men, women, unisex).

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

So really about 0.2% of the population is not a "normal" XY or XX person.

So Jan was right. Who would have thought that? Hold the front page!

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

8 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

So Jan was right. Who would have thought that? Hold the front page!

Guy is seriously bright... but don't stroke his ego!

[Guest]

I couldn't if I wanted to, even the ego is on a different plain.

[Otis11 + 551]

On 9/9/2019 at 7:10 AM, DayTrader said:

Unreal. 

Of course. Correct me if I'm wrong, obviously over here the idea of even having a gun is mad, but it's your right blah blah, that's not my point. After 1 of the latest shootings, the news and Trump suggested we need to look into background checks of people first. My initial thought was obviously ''woah hold on, can any 'lunatic' there just buy whatever they want, no questions asked?''  Is that true?

Ah just saw this. So they can?! That's ridiculous. 

Haha why? It's the thread title. 

 

See, but that's a slippery slope... I would agree people with mental health issues should not have guns (or weapons of any kind). That said, California has that and other 'red flag' laws, and is regularly abused to take away guns from people who have a constitutional right to bear arms.

Also, how long do you think it will take for people to start claiming more and more people are disqualified? Does 'TDS' disqualify you?

Search 'good guy with gun stops shooting' on google and Bing. The difference is shocking. Google is worthless if you disagree with their agenda.

I was searching for a specific incident that happened in Dallas a few years back where a shooter tried to shoot up a movie theater. No less than 4 people stood up and shot back. Shooter threat was eliminated before he could harm a single person. (I couldn't find this in my limited searching... but remember it vividly. Happened down the street from a family members house and was a solid reason for expediting my CHL)

I personally feel safer with a sufficiently armed populace. It's easy for a mentally disturbed person to attack a crowd with no weapons. It's much more intimidating if you expect your victims to be armed.

 

A lot of these 'common sense'gun control methods aren't actually as good of ideas if you objectively look at the data.  I support the second amendment but that's not a sticking point for me - my sticking point is that true, objective data does not support most of these initiatives.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 9/9/2019 at 2:14 AM, Jan van Eck said:

The short answer is:  we don't know.  We do not know if there will be a quality Republican challenger in the GOP primary, for openers.  It is not carved in stone that the incumbent is guaranteed some coronation by the Party, for the next election.  Obviously, if a quality candidate emerges and defeats Trump in the primary, then that is the end of it. 

Let's assume the implausible, that Trump actually intends to run again and intends to seek the Party nomination.  To do that he has to defeat a host of qualified candidates, including a good number of Governors past and present, as well as Ambassadors and Cabinet officials.  Historically candidates do not emerge from the House of Representatives, but sometimes do from the Senate  (MCCain).  And you have distinguished military officers, typically generals  (General Eisenhower for example).  So the field is out there, although some have impacted their chances by getting involved in sex matters  (i.e. General Petraeus).  Paula Broadwell was the Homecoming Queen at her high school in North Dakota, was married to a physician who also was an Army officer, she was a Lt. Colonel, and he was a married General.   Now, in America, that is an incendiary combination:  two quite physically attractive, and undisputedly very smart, people shagging each other  (British for getting in the sack and going for it) while married to others is time for lots of Schadenfreude, German for delight in the scandal shame. 

If you can get past the sex envy part, all those people so envious that they were not the lucky ones doing the shagging, then you are left with two highly qualified candidates for the President job.  In Republican America, that would mean the General, as it is so male-dominated.  It is the sex thing that kills those political careers, even though all those guys (exception being the Bush Presidents) are out there with total abandon, and all the voters also.  It is a peculiar aspect of US life. 

Moving past that, if Trump gets to the general election, it has been observed here that US elections are finalized by the votes in the Electoral College.  That is true, but the College is no longer a Convention of delegates as it was designed.  Instead, the delegates are mere figureheads, and vote according to the winning vote totals in the State election.  Getting past the charade, the popular votes are so close these days that the differences remain statistically insignificant.  I predict the scale tipper this time will be the suburban housewives, who historically have tended to vote more Republican than Democrat, but in 2020 will likely vote in major numbers for a Democrat.  You might be surprised by this, but I suspect the vote will trip over gun control.  Suburban housewives are already uneasy over the reality-TV aspect of Mr. Trump, and the general buffoonery, but the substantive issue will not be trade deals or China or even the Mexicans, it will be over guns. Suburban moms are nesters;  they marry and build a nice nest and hop in there to hatch the young, and anything that threatens that becomes existential.   Guns threaten that.  

The Republicans are never going to deal with gun control.  So those women will vote Democrat, s long as there is something resembling a viable and intelligent candidate out there.  That excludes the freaks that various Parties have trotted out, such as Sarah Palin.  It will exclude Kamela Harris.  The book is not yet closed on Mrs. Warren.  Could the final candidate not yet have been placed in contention?  Hard to say.  But if the Dems finally break with the Clintonistas then as long as there are no blatant sex scandals, such as with Governor Elliott Spitzer and the $4,500 hooker, I think they will take it.  

Trump's base demands that the Second Amendment be strictly adhered to as they interpret it. I am one of them. We could end up in a civil war again if the left wingers try to take ARs and large magazines away from us. I certainly hope it doesn't come to that. 

The real reason that the left wing wants to take away guns is to gain physical control over the populace. The amount of people killed in civilian shootings is NOTHING compared to the number of civilians killed in civil wars and by the governments who succeed in stealing the guns from the populace! Please see my Second Amendment Topic. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lNfCpesT-BhEhMiL5kY2O0VvJtnoAIZiYvvTb0_6eh0/edit

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

Does 'TDS' disqualify you?

Potentially yes. I hear your point but was never talking 2nd amendment, just make it harder for mentally ill people to acquire and go from there. 

7 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

It's easy for a mentally disturbed person to attack a crowd with no weapons. It's much more intimidating if you expect your victims to be armed.

I'd argue if you are truly mentally disturbed you would not be considering the consequences at all or whether potential victims were armed too. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 9/9/2019 at 12:56 PM, DayTrader said:

I never see stories of someone in the USA using their gun because of an intruder in their house.

This happens quite frequently  (unfortunately).  The motive is the drug addicts breaking in to steal.  There is another group that stalks women, especially young women, and then breaks in to rape them.  You would be astonished how often that happens.  I know several women who now carry a pistol, usually a snub-nosed one with hollow-point bullets, precisely to thwart that.  You see these home invasions in Texas and Florida, then in places such as Philadelphia and Memphis.  If the armed homeowner blasts the perp, usually the cops just thank him for saving them the aggravation of having to go book the criminal.  Usually those types of criminals are not of the better classes, and cause problems down at the Station holding cells, and problems in transport to the central jail.   If he gets shot up, presumably dead, then that is one less criminal for the police to have to contend with. 

I would estimate that at least 25% of American women are violently raped at least once in their lives.  I think every woman I have ever dated in the USA has told me that they were raped, typically at around age 24-30.  Women now buy pistols.  Interestingly, the State attempts to keep women from arming themselves.  State bureaucrats are not to be trusted. Never put your faith and trust in a govt bureaucrat, that always goes South.  

Interestingly, this State has no gun laws at all and everyone is armed to the teeth.  I don't even bother with a gun because all my neighbors are heavily armed and great shots; they are nice enough to keep me under their wing.   There is no crime as a practical matter.  I think the reason is that the criminal underclass knows that they will be shot if found doing property crime, so they stay away.  My neighborhood has far more guns than Beirut at its heyday.  Seems to work fine.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

Potentially yes. I hear your point but was never talking 2nd amendment, just make it harder for mentally ill people to acquire and go from there. 

I'd argue if you are truly mentally disturbed you would not be considering the consequences at all or whether potential victims were armed too. 

Would you  say that Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Muhammad, Genghis Khan,  etc. were all mentally ill? Some would, most didn't. Mental illness is a very loose concept and the rules are set by those with the most political power. Psychiatrists are granted great latitude in what they do. The rights of citizens are not high on their list. Rights to keep guns should only be decided in a court of law with a jury. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Seems to work fine.

Fair enough.

7 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Rights to keep guns should only be decided in a court of law with a jury. 

When?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

21 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

We could end up in a civil war again if the left wingers try to take ARs and large magazines away from us.

There is no question that large magazines, over 10 rounds, will be outlawed.  Keep in mind that the Mauser 96 had only 5 rounds, it was a low-capacity rifle.  Nonetheless, the Germans took 2,000,000 Russian military prisoners with that standard-issue rifle in the first two months of Operation Barbarossa.  A trained soldier with a 96 can best a Russian with an AK.  Something to think about.

36 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

The real reason that the left wing wants to take away guns is to gain physical control over the populace. The amount of people killed in civilian shootings is NOTHING compared to the number of civilians killed in civil wars and by the governments who succeed in stealing the guns from the populace!

For anyone who thinks this is a dubious argument, I invite them to review Iran where the mullahs murdered 33,000 political dissidents, who had no guns.  Hanging, beheading, shooting, the mullahs' murdering Republican Guards did it all.  They loved doing it.  Murder comes easily when your target cannot resist.  Especially young women; these guys get orgasms doing the hangings.  33,000.  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

21 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Would you  say that Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Muhammad, Genghis Khan,  etc. were all mentally ill?

Of course they were. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

2 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

XYY is about 1:1000 males (not rare but no issues)

XXY (Klinefelter) is also about 1:1000 males (not rare, but most guys don't go around talking about their micro penis, so also unnoticed).

Androgen insensitivity is about 1:20,000 (so rare, but again most have pretty normal looking "female" habitus so again goes unnoticed).

So really about 0.2% of the population is not a "normal" XY or XX person. They just live normal lives in hiding or ignorance of their condition.

Assuming your numbers are correct, does not abrogate some ass trying to argue a minuscule technicality as pertaining to all of society.

EDIT: Never mind: moderator moved the topic.

Edited September 10, 2019 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Guest]

jeez

Edited September 12, 2019 by Guest

[Zhong Lu + 845]

The general oil discussion section is always used for politics.  

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

7 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Of course they were. 

So were many other leaders that were not so criminally insane. 

Extreme intelligence and mental illness often go together.

"My black dog."

Edited September 10, 2019 by Enthalpic

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Of course they were. 

I would agree but they were able to gain the confidence of the majority and blind allegiance. I feel the same about Demoncrats. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Just now, ronwagn said:

I would agree but they were able to gain the confidence of the majority and blind allegiance. I feel the same about Demoncrats. 

Trump has mental illness - for sure - and while I'm not obviously not a fan of his I will admit that mental illness doesn't preclude being a great leader.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

53 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

See, but that's a slippery slope... I would agree people with mental health issues should not have guns (or weapons of any kind). That said, California has that and other 'red flag' laws, and is regularly abused to take away guns from people who have a constitutional right to bear arms.

Also, how long do you think it will take for people to start claiming more and more people are disqualified? Does 'TDS' disqualify you?

 

 

 

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Top athletes, great scientists, leaders, artists, are all Abnormal by definition.

Embrace differences.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Enthalpic said:

Trump has mental illness - for sure

Woohoo we vaguely got back to the thread title

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, Enthalpic said:

Extreme intelligence and mental illness often go together.

Fine.  And you see that in chess players at those tournaments. 

What does not "go together" is a mentally ill or emotionally disturbed person and a gun with lots of ammo.  That is a recipe for serious trouble. If you trace back all those shootings in the USA, the ALL were perpetrated by persons who were either mentally ill or emotionally disturbed.  How to effectively separate them from guns is the big conundrum.  I would suggest one way is to build new psychiatric hospitals, as the touchy-feely ideas  (yes, pushed by Democrats) that the mentally ill should be "integrated into society" by closing the hospitals and putting the ill out onto the street to go fend for themselves, was a profoundly stupid idea. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

And you see that in chess players

LOL back to Bobby. 

To clarify for people, there is a difference between 'mentally ill / disturbed' , and 'someone who doesn't think the same as me'

 

2 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

If you trace back all those shootings in the USA, the ALL were perpetrated by persons who were either mentally ill or emotionally disturbed.

At last. 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Guest

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute ago, DayTrader said:

Woohoo we vaguely got back to the thread title

So about those illegal voters ...

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Top athletes, great scientists, leaders, artists, are all Abnormal by definition.

Fine.  I don't see great scientists and concert violinists running around with guns shooting up the city, either.  Let's not get totally ridiculous, that argument is quintessentially Canadian.