***** Official Election Game Day Thread *****

[Ulty]

10 minutes ago, commando said:

what is the proper term for donald now?  lame duck or donald duck?

He's likely to be more unhinged and more dangerous during his 2 and a half months of being a lame duck than he has ever been. Hopefully the surviving GOP who do not need him anymore will no longer kowtow to him, but I don't know.

[knapplc]

7 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

It amazes me that people actually worry about that happening.

 

It's completely irrational. But for a large group of people who typically vote a certain party, that's their fear, every time.

 

 

Quote

 

Gun Sales Down After Obama Boom Years

Americans purchased more than $29.1 billion in firearms and $16.6 billion in ammunition during his two terms in the White House, an analysis from The Washington Post published Wednesday found. Some of that was fueled by Obama's repeated attempts to introduce gun control measures that could make it harder for some Americans to buy guns. In contrast, during the 16 years Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were president, Americans spent a total of, respectively, $21.1 billion and $22.9 billion on guns and ammo.

Obama's exit from the White House seems to have provided some Americans relief about the security of their Second Amendment rights. Since President Donald Trump won election in November, gun sales appear to be going down. In December 2016, for example, a popular time for gun sales as Christmas presents, the FBI conducted just 2.8 million backgrounds checks. The year before, the FBI conducted 3.3 million background checks around Christmas. Gun sales so far this year appear to have dropped by 17 percent.

 

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It's completely irrational. But for a large group of people who typically vote a certain party, that's their fear, every time.

 

 

 

 

Oh, I know plenty of people like that.... As a gun owner, I'm not worried at all. I'm not sure the Democrats have the balls to go anywhere near the 2nd amendment, let alone THAT far.... And the steps they've talked about taking with the AR style rifle, I'd be okay with.

[teachercd]

6 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Yes, it is. Just as a thought experiment... Who is going to hurt worse if you take 10% of their income. The person barely getting by on 10k a year or the person making 100k? That $10,000 sucks but it's not going to be a problem. On the other hand that $1,000 you just took could mean they don't pay rent for a month, can't get all the groceries they need each week, don't have money to fix their car, etc.

 

10% isn't just 10%

How would you know that?

What if they have expensive monthly payments...

[Cdog923]

12 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Ha!

 

 

You ummmm...you don't do a lot of team slogans for your school, do you?  Hahaha

 

I actually crowdsourced that with my first period class 

[teachercd]

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It's completely irrational. But for a large group of people who typically vote a certain party, that's their fear, every time.

 

 

 

I think it was Cabala's...I had a buddy go there to get bullets I think...this was like 10 years ago.  He said the dude working the gun counter said they could not keep the stuff on the shelves, it was selling so fast.

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Oh, I know plenty of people like that.... As a gun owner, I'm not worried at all. I'm not sure the Democrats have the balls to go anywhere near the 2nd amendment, let alone THAT far.... And the steps they've talked about taking with the AR style rifle, I'd be okay with.

 

I'm probably one of the more anti-gun guys on this board and even I don't think that should mean "no guns."

 

We absolutely MUST keep hunters and their guns. The animals they cull would run rampant if we took away those guns, so duh. That would be stupid. You'd hit a deer every mile of country road, and crops would be absolutely wrecked.

 

I also think handguns in most forms are fine. Home defense, personal defense, or just putting holes in targets at the range. They're fun and reasonably safe in reasonable hands.

 

It's the repeating-style guns, the ones that shoot thousands of rounds per minute, that I think we can all agree we don't need. Our police don't need to face those on the streets, we don't need whackos shooting up concerts or dance halls or synagogues, and we certainly don't need them for hunting.

 

As with everything, we just need to be reasonable about guns.

 

[GSG]

19 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

It amazes me that people actually worry about that happening.

 

8 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It's completely irrational. But for a large group of people who typically vote a certain party, that's their fear, every time.

 

 

 

 

We had a customer come in yesterday with his Trump mask on. He emptied out his savings so he could "invest in ammo" because he is "really concerned about where this country is heading."

[funhusker]

27 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Is it regressive if you take the same amount from both?

 

We just see this in fundamentally different ways.

Let me just say that this is the type of conversation that has been missed by many for the past 4 years.  Discussion about political beliefs that aren't based on defending or attacking a deranged President.

 

It's refreshing!

[ZRod]

20 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I said I'd be okay with a floor salary.

 

A better example would be 70k vs. 250k.... 7k in taxes, using your rate, vs 25k.... I don't feel bad for the 70k guy in that situation

 

Which is why we have tax brackets... Not a flat tax. That 250k earner isn't going to pay 10% across his entire income.

 

Also, I don't feel bad for the 250k guy either. I make far less than that and pay something in the ball park for taxes.

[teachercd]

I would be fine with zero guns at all, except for what would essentially be a musket, you can hunt with that.  

 

And Rambo hunted with a knife.

[Moiraine]

5 minutes ago, GSG said:

 

 

We had a customer come in yesterday with his Trump mask on. He emptied out his savings so he could "invest in ammo" because he is "really concerned about where this country is heading."

 

 

Democrat presidents are always good for gun sales. 

[Enhance]

7 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Does Stacey Abrams count as a presidential candidate?  She claimed janus coin "voter suppression" to explain a loss for GA governor. She never quite explained the specifics of how who's votes were suppressed.

 

Likewise I never figured out what "Russian Collusion" materially did to win the election for Trump in 2016.  No one really thought Putin got into the polls. 

 

So it's not a surprise poorly defined rumors our flying around, nor that Trump is re-tweeting them.  There are however some specific ones getting picked up by Fox.  Poll watchers barred from observation in PA, flouting a court order at one point.  Illegal votes coming out of NV.  Neither would be a surprise to political historians. 

If memory serves, they did provide an explanation but it's been awhile since I reviewed it. Ultimately, I would argue what Trump is doing, how he is doing it, and the scale to which he is doing it, is far more detrimental to our country's integrity and democratic process. It's objectively unheard of. I don't personally find the two situations very comparable.

 

As for your last paragraph, I can't say I'm surprised with the behavior either. However, most of the accusations have already been proven baseless or without real prejudice, which makes it grossly irresponsible to perpetuate the rumors further. Poll watchers have not been barred from observation in PA - the video that was widely shared of a Republican watcher being turned away was quickly corrected by election officials and the person was allowed to watch, and a judge has since ordered that the poll watchers be allowed to move closer.

 

And, again, the claims of illegal votes in Nevada so far have not been substantiated with any credible evidence, at least so far as I have seen. So discussing them feels grossly inappropriate.

[Moiraine]

Trump will refuse to concede and is going to fight this thing tooth and nail. Hopefully he doesn’t make any progress whatsoever. 

[B.B. Hemingway]

16 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I'm probably one of the more anti-gun guys on this board and even I don't think that should mean "no guns."

 

We absolutely MUST keep hunters and their guns. The animals they cull would run rampant if we took away those guns, so duh. That would be stupid. You'd hit a deer every mile of country road, and crops would be absolutely wrecked.

 

I also think handguns in most forms are fine. Home defense, personal defense, or just putting holes in targets at the range. They're fun and reasonably safe in reasonable hands.

 

It's the repeating-style guns, the ones that shoot thousands of rounds per minute, that I think we can all agree we don't need. Our police don't need to face those on the streets, we don't need whackos shooting up concerts or dance halls or synagogues, and we certainly don't need them for hunting.

 

As with everything, we just need to be reasonable about guns.

 

 

 

Agreed.

14 minutes ago, GSG said:

 

 

We had a customer come in yesterday with his Trump mask on. He emptied out his savings so he could "invest in ammo" because he is "really concerned about where this country is heading."

 

Was probably an uncle of mine