Non - Can This Bloke Become President Of The United States?

[SlowDownDerek]

There is an 'anyone but Trump' majority in the USA. That majority was seven million votes in 2020 and will be greater in 2024 if Trump should be the Republican candidate.

Trump is a convicted and self-admitted sexual abuser. Moderate Republicans are becoming sickened and repulsed.

Trump is soon to be indicted for his attempted election subversion in Georgia not to mention the 34 criminal counts related to the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.

Trump only remains popular amongst the conspiracy theorists, the gun nuts and racists.

Trump managed to lie his way through once, but will not a second time. Pete Townshend got it right, Won't Get Fooled Again.

Are those people really 'anyone but Trump'? They weren't previously and it's not like Biden is popular with a brilliant track record either is it? I don't think there's any guarantees about swing voters.

Not sure he's a convicted sex attacker either.

 

[USCherry]

Not sure he's a convicted sex attacker either.

found liable doesn't roll off the tongue.

 

[SlowDownDerek]

found liable doesn't roll off the tongue.

Maybe not but it's not a criminal conviction.

 

[Toronto John]

At this stage, the choice is between disapprove and disapprove. Long way to go.

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/bidens-approval-rating-hits-time-low-99157958

 

[adam0102]

The key for the democrats is to, again, get the young vote out

But they won’t get as much of that as you’d expect whilst they choose a doddery 80-year-old billionaire who has zero in common with any of them, surely?

Is there really no better Democrat leadership contender?

The Republicans are no better, I remember the debates last time and there was barely a credible candidate amongst them

 

[Druss_the_Legend]

I think you will find that both parties are not beholden to any gun community but to the US Constitution and subject to the Bill of Rights when entering into the Senate or Congress which they swear an oath to uphold.

Firstly, the right to bear arms can mean many things and could include increased checks and restrictions as well as a reduction in the range of "arms" you can bear.

Secondarily, you could amend the constitution and remove the right. The clue is in the name.

I'll ask you the same question I ask many on your side of the argument... IF it was proved that heavily restricting weapons would stop children being gunned down in schools...would you agree to it? Yes or no?

 

[Druss_the_Legend]

But they won’t get as much of that as you’d expect whilst they choose a doddery 80-year-old billionaire who has zero in common with any of them, surely?

Is there really no better Democrat leadership contender?

The Republicans are no better, I remember the debates last time and there was barely a credible candidate amongst them

This. If the Dems allow Biden a free run they will lose many voters who would vote for anyone with a rosette on as long as they appeared to be under 130 years old.

 

[kirsikka]

Firstly, the right to bear arms can mean many things and could include increased checks and restrictions as well as a reduction in the range of "arms" you can bear.

Secondarily, you could amend the constitution and remove the right. The clue is in the name.

I'll ask you the same question I ask many on your side of the argument... IF it was proved that heavily restricting weapons would stop children being gunned down in schools...would you agree to it? Yes or no?

I believe you need a supermajority for any amendments to the constitution. So two thirds or three quarters. Simply not going to happen over there right now.

 

[USCherry]

Firstly, the right to bear arms can mean many things and could include increased checks and restrictions as well as a reduction in the range of "arms" you can bear.

The key part for gun advocates is "shall not be infringed", so to them any kind of checks is out of the question. I agree that banning certain types of weapons does not infringe on the right to bear arms. I would argue that restricting ammunition would also work. Some kind of prescription for ammo.

 

[Toronto John]

Firstly, the right to bear arms can mean many things and could include increased checks and restrictions as well as a reduction in the range of "arms" you can bear.

Secondarily, you could amend the constitution and remove the right. The clue is in the name.

I'll ask you the same question I ask many on your side of the argument... IF it was proved that heavily restricting weapons would stop children being gunned down in schools...would you agree to it? Yes or no?

Whether Sam agrees isn't really the point. There have been school shootings for ages and a little has been done, but not a lot, because there is no will to do so among the politicians. The voting public is not particularly satisfied with the status quo, but not enough, or vocal enough, to drive changes.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

I have said it before, none of us except the few Americans on here have any great currency on the topic. It is engrained in the Constitution and a lightening rod issue for those who live there. Cradle to grave stuff.
.

 

[kirsikka]

Whether Sam agrees isn't really the point. There have been school shootings for ages and a little has been done, but not a lot, because there is no will to do so among the politicians. The voting public is not particularly satisfied with the status quo, but not enough, or vocal enough, to drive changes.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

I have said it before, none of us except the few Americans on here have any great currency on the topic. It is engrained in the Constitution and a lightening rod issue for those who live there. Cradle to grave stuff.
.

The Australia example is pretty interesting though. Shows what a difference it can make.

 

[Druss_the_Legend]

Its a simple yes/no question. Its amazing how many Americans openly accept the death of children if it means they can keep their guns. Thats not hyperbole, they state that even if evidence showed (which of course it does) that school shootings would be reduced to almost none if guns restrictions were brought it would they approve and they say no, its more important that the 2nd amendment is not *ahem* amended.

 

[SlowDownDerek]

I honestly don't know why people in the UK waste their time arguing about Americans and their guns. It's complete madness how obsessed they are with guns and how they are willing to overlook all logic and evidence as to how damaging they are but it's their country and they aren't going to change anytime soon.

 

[Toronto John]

The Australia example is pretty interesting though. Shows what a difference it can make.

Yeah, if you had a clean sheet of paper, you might draw it up that way. But something that has been in place since 1791 is a lot more difficult to move the needle, and as you have pointed out, requires a strong majority
An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

 

[Def_II_Royalz]

Statute of limitations meant it could only be a civil suit.

Maybe not but it's not a criminal conviction.

 

[Toronto John]

Its a simple yes/no questions. Its amazing how many Americans openly accept the death of children if it means they can keep their guns. Thats not hyperbole, they state that even if evidence showed (which of course it does) that school shootings would be reduced to almost none if guns restrictions were brought it would they approve and they say no, its more important that the 2nd amendment is not *ahem* amended.

It's a simple question, but the answers are not so much, because the old argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" then arrives and opens up other issues such as mental health, etc.
You've been over there a lot (38 states if I recall from a much earlier post), what kind of answer do you get to the "simple question"?

 

[SlowDownDerek]

Its a simple yes/no questions. Its amazing how many Americans openly accept the death of children if it means they can keep their guns. Thats not hyperbole, they state that even if evidence showed (which of course it does) that school shootings would be reduced to almost none if guns restrictions were brought it would they approve and they say no, its more important that the 2nd amendment is not *ahem* amended.

If the evidence showed that heavily restricting the use of cars would lead to a reduction in children being run down in the street would you agree to it?

 

[USCherry]

I honestly don't know why people in the UK waste their time arguing about Americans and their guns. It's complete madness how obsessed they are with guns and how they are willing to overlook all logic and evidence as to how damaging they are but it's their country and they aren't going to change anytime soon.

It's more than a gun obsessed country, it is a US constitution obsessed country. They take it very seriously. I can talk to some very smart non-gun nut people who will say he only way to get true gun reform is to change it. But the bar to actually do that is just not possible to reach on this subject.

As an aside, my absolute favourite amendments are the beautifully numbered 18th and 21st

 

[USCherry]

If the evidence showed that heavily restricting the use of cars would lead to a reduction in children being run down in the street would you agree to it?

The right to own cars is not protected under the US constitution.

 

[Druss_the_Legend]

If the evidence showed that heavily restricting the use of cars would lead to a reduction in children being run down in the street would you agree to it?

You are asking the wrong person as one of the green types that love car restrictions and more promotion of other, safer, modes of transport.