2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

I'm trying to get my hands on a Remington Model 7600, but no one I know will sell one to me because they are running scared.

That's weird... I googled the "buy Remington Model 7600" and these were all in the first 5-6 links

https://www.remington.com/rifles/pump-action/model-7600
https://www.remington.com/retail-locator
- If I'm right, you're in Florida. Tampa, Jacksonville, Orlando and Miami all show at least 15 retailers.

http://www.cabelas.ca/product/4754/remington-model-7600-synthetic-pump-action-rifle
This place sells it too.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/Search.htm?T=remington%207600
And here, or any of the 9 other varieties of Remington rifles they have for sale.

http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=Remington+and+(Model+7600)
This will work if you would prefer to buy it off a seller.

https://www.usedguns.com.au/Guns/used_pump_semi_auto_guns
Or better again, you can get the police model of it here.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

ROBERT

Given that you have responded to posts from after this one, you seem eager not to respond. But I still have to and will continue ask, why did you do that?

Apologies Billy, I was not ignoring you.

I don't know what deal was done or if there was a deal.
We will probably find out for sure over the coming weeks as this story could gain legs.
It has all gone quiet on Russia hacking the DNC.

It is interesting that Wikileaks are offering a reward for information on the murder of Seth Rich.
Maybe more will be revealed closer to election day.

Wikileaks is a player in this election.

Amerika

BoatMad wrote: »

laws are not rigid instruments, they are a collection of words attempting to express a set of requirements or directions. Their interpretation in a modern democratic state is for the court to decide ( which is precisely why we have them ) , every day governments enacts legislation or issue " executive actions " ( like our SIs) that often fail a subsequent legal challenge. its the nature of our legal system.

your are simply cherry picking because you dont like it.

To quote Barack Obama... "Don’t tell me words don’t matter."

K-9

Billy86 wrote: »

ROBERT

Given that you have responded to posts from after this one, you seem eager not to respond. But I still have to and will continue ask, why did you do that?

The poster may have you on ignore which is an option on the site.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Apologies Billy, I was not ignoring you.

I don't know what deal was done or if there was a deal.
We will probably find out for sure over the coming weeks as this story could gain legs.
It has all gone quiet on Russia hacking the DNC.

It is interesting that Wikileaks are offering a reward for information on the murder of Seth Rich.
Maybe more will be revealed closer to election day.

Wikileaks is a player in this election.

I asked you why claimed definitively that the email leak "turned out to be Seth Rich" when discussing a conspiracy theory and a video where Assange explicitly refused to state Rich was the leak. Again, you are attempting to side step that.

Why did you make the definitive claim when you yourself admit you have proof of it?

Skylinehead

RobertKK wrote: »

As Secretary of State, she was not involved in any new wars. That role says a lot about what type of person they are.
Clinton to me was a disaster.

Clinton voted for the Iraq war as a member of the opposition. Condoleezza Rice actually planned the Iraq war as a member of Bushs inner circle and lied to the public about Saddams "WMDs". How is that better than what Clinton did? If your opposition to Clinton is based on her being a warmonger, as you have stated, then this is a farce.

That's a very hypocritical stance Rob.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

By removing tax loopholes?
Hillary would raise their taxes but keep the loopholes so they would be better off under her.

The Democrats...the party of the little guy...but with billionaires flocking to it.

Why aren't these all these billionaires apart from the likes of Icahn not going to Trump?

Buffett had been backing Hillary even before it was announced that Trump was running.

Most billionaires get the majority of their income from capital gains. Trump is proposing a capital gains tax cut.

I'd imagine they aren't supporting Trump for the same reason every decent, intelligent person isn't supporting him. He would be a terrible president.

RobertKK

K-9 wrote: »

The poster may have you on ignore which is an option on the site.

I have no one on ignore, I like Billy, We post on the same superthread in the soccer forum...

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

Most billionaires get the majority of their income from capital gains. Trump is proposing a capital gains tax cut.

I'd imagine they aren't supporting Trump for the same reason every decent, intelligent person isn't supporting him. He would be a terrible president.

When Charlie McCreevy cut CGT tax from 40% to 20%, Revenue made more in tax from having the lower rate, the higher tax rate encourages one to take a loss on a different investment to write it off against a gain.

For your last sentence you could also replace Trump with Clinton.

Billy86

Skylinehead wrote: »

Clinton voted for the Iraq war as a member of the opposition. Condoleezza Rice actually planned the Iraq war as a member of Bushs inner circle and lied to the public about Saddams "WMDs". How is that better than what Clinton did? If your opposition to Clinton is based on her being a warmonger, as you have stated, then this is a farce.

That's a very hypocritical stance Rob.

We covered this about a week back, if I recall he considers Rice to be 'one of the best secretaries of state in a long time' on the basis that she played a big role in Libya's end to seeking nukes. On the other hand, that Clinton is heavily credited with doing the exact same in Iran means nothing.

Then, Clinton's voting for Iraq and role in Libya are seen as proof she is a warmonger and automatically (one of, or was it the?) worst the US has ever had... and on the flipside, Rice being a crucial player in the Iraq war means nothing.

That Trump supported the war in Iraq and Mike Pence was one of the staunch supporters of it, and remains as such is also irrelevant, but somehow Clinton voting yes on Iraq has come up repeatedly from him in this thread alone.

I get that Robert isn't backing Trump for the nefarious reasons many in this thread have before, I do fully get that and it's reassuring. But the logical loopholes on this would break your brain.

ebbsy

Out of sight out of mind is where Hillary is. Trump is on everybody's mind and maybe that's what he wants. Just when you think he's back on the straight and narrow he pulls another crazy.

We won't see the likes of this again.

BoatMad

ebbsy wrote: »

Out of sight out of mind is where Hillary is. Trump is on everybody's mind and maybe that's what he wants. Just when you think he's back on the straight and narrow he pulls another crazy.

We won't see the likes of this again.

and hopefully the GOP will implode with his failure too. Ive always maintained that Trump simply wants to destroy the mainstream Republican party

the upside is that maybe the GOP will ditch extremists and return to the days of centre ground republicanism

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

When Charlie McCreevy cut CGT tax from 40% to 20%, Revenue made more in tax from having the lower rate, the higher tax rate encourages one to take a loss on a different investment to write it off against a gain.

For your last sentence you could also replace Trump with Clinton.

Your first sentence is irrelevant.

Clinton has overwhelming support from people with a college degree. So you couldn't say the same about her.

InTheTrees

RobertKK wrote: »

It is interesting that Wikileaks are offering a reward for information on the murder of Seth Rich.

So they're admitting they have no evidence?

RobertKK

Skylinehead wrote: »

Clinton voted for the Iraq war as a member of the opposition. Condoleezza Rice actually planned the Iraq war as a member of Bushs inner circle and lied to the public about Saddams "WMDs". How is that better than what Clinton did? If your opposition to Clinton is based on her being a warmonger, as you have stated, then this is a farce.

That's a very hypocritical stance Rob.

It was Colin Powell who presented the false data, I remember watching it live on TV.

Condoleezza Rice is far from perfect, she didn't do what Hillary did though. Rice and the Bush regime had the surge in Iraq in 2007 which Hillary opposed, the surge did help to stabilise Iraq.
It all went to **** under the Obama regime, withdrew troops, Iraq overtaken by terrorists in parts.
Then Libya happened, rather than having a surge when Libya was getting more unstable, nothing from the Obama regime, and instead did the same as Iraq and let terrorists take over parts of the country, though it could be argued Hillary came to the aid of terrorists in Benghazi who Gaddafi had said he would kill, and quite frankly who would have been no loss as there was strong evidence from video at the time of Al Qaeda beheading black Gaddafi mercenaries in Benghazi.

I think as Secretary of State that Rice did a job which did not make the world less stable.

RobertKK

InTheTrees wrote: »

So they're admitting they have no evidence?

They don't on who the actual murderer was. Seth Rich was shot twice in the back in what the police said was a robbery, but where nothing was stolen...

Skylinehead

RobertKK wrote: »

It was Colin Powell who presented the false data, I remember watching it live on TV.

Condoleezza Rice is far from perfect, she didn't do what Hillary did though. Rice and the Bush regime had the surge in Iraq in 2007 which Hillary opposed, the surge did help to stabilise Iraq.
It all went to **** under the Obama regime, withdrew troops, Iraq overtaken by terrorists in parts.
Then Libya happened, rather than having a surge when Libya was getting more unstable, nothing from the Obama regime, and instead did the same as Iraq and let terrorists take over parts of the country, though it could be argued Hillary came to the aid of terrorists in Benghazi who Gaddafi had said he would kill, and quite frankly who would have been no loss as there was strong evidence from video at the time of Al Qaeda beheading black Gaddafi mercenaries in Benghazi.

I think as Secretary of State that Rice did a job which did not make the world less stable.

I was thinking this rather than the infamous presentation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/opinion/why-we-know-iraq-is-lying.html

Written by one C. Rice.

She wasn't SoS at the time, but she was the National Security Advisor and was heavily involved in pushing the war. She, along with Rumsfeld/Cheney etc, instigated the Iraq War, and as such destabilised the region and brought about the rise of ISIS. Is anything I said there wrong?

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

Your first sentence is irrelevant.

Clinton has overwhelming support from people with a college degree. So you couldn't say the same about her.

What is relevant is how a tax measure affects revenue, higher taxes can also depress tax take.

Clinton also has an overwhelming lead in the polls when it comes to being dishonest and untrustworthy, does this mean people with a college degree are more likely to support someone seen as corrupt?

BoatMad

RobertKK wrote: »

It was Colin Powell who presented the false data, I remember watching it live on TV.

Condoleezza Rice is far from perfect, she didn't do what Hillary did though. Rice and the Bush regime had the surge in Iraq in 2007 which Hillary opposed, the surge did help to stabilise Iraq.
It all went to **** under the Obama regime, withdrew troops, Iraq overtaken by terrorists in parts.
Then Libya happened, rather than having a surge when Libya was getting more unstable, nothing from the Obama regime, and instead did the same as Iraq and let terrorists take over parts of the country, though it could be argued Hillary came to the aid of terrorists in Benghazi who Gaddafi had said he would kill, and quite frankly who would have been no loss as there was strong evidence from video at the time of Al Qaeda beheading black Gaddafi mercenaries in Benghazi.

I think as Secretary of State that Rice did a job which did not make the world less stable.

just where did the US get appointed to deal with " terrorists"

also most of these "terrorists" where directly radicalised by the US actions in their countries,. the US has massive blood on its hands in that regards

Not to mention that most of them where armed by the US or its proxies in the first place.

Seriously you'd think the US was blundering around the ME, going " how did I get here and who are these terrorist dudes trying to attack me "

BoatMad

Skylinehead wrote: »

I was thinking this rather than the infamous presentation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/opinion/why-we-know-iraq-is-lying.html

Written by one C. Rice.

She wasn't SoS at the time, but she was the National Security Advisor and was heavily involved in pushing the war. She, along with Rumsfeld/Cheney etc, instigated the Iraq War, and as such destabilised the region and brought about the rise of ISIS. Is anything I said there wrong?

+1

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

What is relevant is how a tax measure affects revenue, higher taxes can also depress tax take.

Clinton also has an overwhelming lead in the polls when it comes to being dishonest and untrustworthy, does this mean people with a college degree are more likely to support someone seen as corrupt?

The US CGT rate isn't 40% so it is irrelevant. Not that one data point proves anything anyway.

Maybe having a college degree is an indication that someone is intelligent enough to realise that she isn't corrupt.

Suryavarman

I don't think anyone has mentioned the below tweet yet. The Secret Service tweeted the below after Trump suggested that Clinton should be assassinated if she were elected. There's a possibility that Trump could be investigated over the comments. I hope that doesn't happen. It'd be such a shame for the only decent and ethical candidate in the race to have such a fate befall him.

https://twitter.com/SecretService/status/763142627202048000

RobertKK

Skylinehead wrote: »

I was thinking this rather than the infamous presentation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/opinion/why-we-know-iraq-is-lying.html

Written by one C. Rice.

She wasn't SoS at the time, but she was the National Security Advisor and was heavily involved in pushing the war. She, along with Rumsfeld/Cheney etc, instigated the Iraq War, and as such destabilised the region and brought about the rise of ISIS. Is anything I said there wrong?

I am not going to disagree with the first part.
The rise of ISIS is wrong though, Hillary Clinton destablised Libya. It was a high food price crisis that sparked the Arab Spring.
Syria was where Hillary and the coalition of the idiots supported the opposition to Assad, Assad while not being a nice person, did allow different religions to live peacefully together, instead the Sunni Muslims governments and subservient western governments supported the Sunni Muslim opposition.
It was bad enough weapons went to terrorists in Libya, the same has happened in Syria.
Western governments combined with governments like the Saudis and Qatari, UAE governments helped create ISIS.
The same governments who backed the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood group who were slaughtering Christians in Egypt and wanting Sharia law which led to the military coup to save their country.
Our Sunni 'allies' helped create ISIS. Then stupid western governments did by going with what countries like the Saudis wanted, helped having Saudi friend Hillary as secretary of State.


This email from the Hillary Clinton files...links toppling Assad to helping Israel against Iran.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

So are you happy to support Hillary and her Iran obsession which includes war against Iran?

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

I don't think anyone has mentioned the below tweet yet. The Secret Service tweeted the below after Trump suggested that Clinton should be assassinated if she were elected. There's a possibility that Trump could be investigated over the comments. I hope that doesn't happen. It'd be such a shame for the only decent and ethical candidate in the race to have such a fate befall him.

https://twitter.com/SecretService/status/763142627202048000

Was Hillary ever investigated for implying in 2008 that Obama could end up like Robert Kennedy?

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

The US CGT rate isn't 40% so it is irrelevant. Not that one data point proves anything anyway.

Maybe having a college degree is an indication that someone is intelligent enough to realise that she isn't corrupt.

A college degree and no intelligence = supporting Hillary because she supports women rights, Clintons accept money from Saudis who are very anti-women rights. Clintons are pro-LGBT, but accepts money from the Saudis who kill gay people.
I don't see these people being intelligent enough to question the hypocrisy of all of this.

The Clintons are also expert cattle people too if you believe she knew nothing when she made near a 10,000% return on cattle futures.

molloyjh

RobertKK wrote: »

They don't on who the actual murderer was. Seth Rich was shot twice in the back in what the police said was a robbery, but where nothing was stolen...

The police said it may have been a robbery, but would welcome any information that would lead to the killer. The reason they have said that is due to a spate of robberies in the area. Police have also said that there is no evidence at all that the murder was politically motivated.

The idea that the DNC were involved came primarily from a pro-Trump Reddit page and Wikileaks as an organisation hasn't made any comments on it. Is there even a consistent theory? Was he killed for leaking emails? Was he of the belief he was meeting with the FBI? Why would he secretly meet the FBI at 4am if he was leaking information to Wikileaks?

The attempts to link him to the email leak is tenuous at best. The guy had only been working for the DNC for 2 years so the chances of him having access to incriminating information are pretty low. And Assange, when asked about the emails previously, indicated that the DNC had probably been hacked numerous time over the years leading to the leak. He said nothing of a source within the DNC.

Some of those involved in peddling the conspiracy have also tried peddling ones previously which have proven to be false. So all in all it's a hard one to swallow to be honest. I don't say this as a fan of Clinton or the DNC, but more as a fan of reason and critical thought.

K-9

RobertKK wrote: »

Was Hillary ever investigated for implying in 2008 that Obama could end up like Robert Kennedy?

Don't know but it was an example of an increasingly desperate campaign, same as it is with Trump.

Skylinehead

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not going to disagree with the first part.
The rise of ISIS is wrong though, Hillary Clinton destablised Libya. It was a high food price crisis that sparked the Arab Spring.
Syria was where Hillary and the coalition of the idiots supported the opposition to Assad, Assad while not being a nice person, did allow different religions to live peacefully together, instead the Sunni Muslims governments and subservient western governments supported the Sunni Muslim opposition.
It was bad enough weapons went to terrorists in Libya, the same has happened in Syria.
Western governments combined with governments like the Saudis and Qatari, UAE governments helped create ISIS.
The same governments who backed the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood group who were slaughtering Christians in Egypt and wanting Sharia law which led to the military coup to save their country.
Our Sunni 'allies' helped create ISIS. Then stupid western governments did by going with what countries like the Saudis wanted, helped having Saudi friend Hillary as secretary of State.


This email from the Hillary Clinton files...links toppling Assad to helping Israel against Iran.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

So are you happy to support Hillary and her Iran obsession which includes war against Iran?

ISIS existed before that, and were quite active in Iraq (post war anyway), but you're right that it was the Arab Spring that got them where they are now.

You're totally whitewashing the Iraq War here though. Without that, the Middle East would be a much more stable place, and Condoleezza Rice's lies led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. How can you like someone like that Rob?

For the record, I don't support Clinton. Thoroughly dislikeable person, but a lesser evil than the lunatic that is Donald Trump. And on that, you do know he wants to send ground troops into Syria? 20 or 30 thousand I believe was the figure.

Peist2007

Amerika wrote: »

I was watching The Morning Joe show on MSBNC this morning. For the first hour they trashed Trump. Not until about one hour into the show did they even mention the Wikileaks matter and the murdered DNC staffer, and it was a very short segment.

The media's Operation Get Trump is running rather smoothly.

They have to ignore this also in order to maintain their outrage:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Hillary_cites_RFK_assasination_in_explaining_why_shes_still_in_race.html

PopePalpatine

RobertKK wrote: »

Was Hillary ever investigated for implying in 2008 that Obama could end up like Robert Kennedy?

Something tells me she didn't word that suggestion as Trump did, e.g. "maybe some States' Rights people could do something about an Obama presidency".