Refute Political Memes Here

For the sake of being fair and balanced, here are some things that the Republican presidential nominee has said about women:

“Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers."

"You have to treat [women] like shit."

"You know, it doesn't really matter what [the media] write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass."

“All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me — consciously or unconsciously."

 

​

 

Not only that, but the accusation of Donald Drumpf as a pathological liar was championed by Ted Cruz a few months ago, making this yet another instance of a reasonable accusation against the xenophobic egomaniac nonsensically turned around in attempt to use it against his opponents.

I can do a comparison with the opposition on this point too!

Which candidate is more like a criminal?

Hillary Clinton: None of the numerous investigations and witch hunts from Whitewater and Travelgate to Benghazi and Emailgate concluded that she committed wrongdoing as would be necessary to indict her (much less convict her) of any crimes.

The Angry Orange: Convicted in a federal court in 1991 of conspiring to avoid paying pension and welfare fund contributions after hiring 200 undocumented immigrants in the construction of Trump Tower. Charged, found guilty, and fined by NY and NJ multiple times for violating casino regulations between 1990 and 2000. Currently the subject of a class action lawsuit after his modeling agency broke federal immigration law by underpaying models on H-1B visas. Currently the subject of three lawsuits on charges of fraud against Trump University. Has had dozens of tax liens imposed on his companies for nonpayment of taxes. Has settled with plaintiffs in countless cases after being indicted on charges including housing discrimination, defamation, fraud, sexual harassment, and breach of contract.

 

​

 

​

 

Only if you need to hunt for food.

 

Even then it's questionable. Shooting is hardly a humane method of animal slaughter.

And scenarios where you think you need a gun to defend against an active shooter? You don't. According to the 2014 FBI report Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the US between 2000 and 2013, 13% of the 160 identified incidents ended when an unarmed citizen restrained the shooter, while only 3% were ended after armed citizens exchanged gunfire with the shooters.

 

It's only inhumane if you don't know what the fuck you are doing.
A good hunter with a properly aimed bullet can be just as (if not more, I've seen the footage of how horrible those places can be) humane as a slaughter house.

 

Shooting game in the head can be humane slaughter--at least by how the US Humane Slaughter Act defines it--as long as it rapidly and effectively renders an animal insensitive to pain. But I will defend that shooting game is hardly a humane method overall because it is not nearly as certain to rapidly and effectively render an animal insensitive to pain as are other methods, such as electronarcosis. And a properly aimed bullet doesn't factor in at all when downing birds with shot.

 

​

 

Slaughter can be carried out in a humane way (by a legal definition of "humane slaughter" such as that put forth by the US Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act) by slaughterhouses and hunters alike. To convincingly argue that eating game is more ethical than eating livestock because the proportion of hunters that carry out humane slaughter is greater than the proportion of slaughterhouses that do, you ought to cite statistical data from animal welfare research that supports this claim.

Additionally, "tu quoque" arguments do not logically invalidate arguments presented by other people, be they hypocritical or otherwise. Such people may appear insincere or unsympathetic, but I nevertheless recommend judging the merit of any arguments independently of any judgements of the people presenting them.

Yes, this graphic conveys a sentiment that is rather selfish and quite unkindly. What's more, it seems distant from the subject of this thread.

 

I still dont understand why anyone would need a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine to hunt.

Doesnt sound very sporting, particularly given that the intended prey cant shoot back.

 

​