Clinton Campaigns To Allow Hit-And-Run Victims To Sue Car Makers

a reply to: Sublimecraft

It would follow wouldn't it?

Maybe that'd make 'em think twice, three times, before allowing this to happen.

I know this thread topic has been called bogus but just as a thought exercise, let's take it to its logical extreme.

Eventually, people will be able to sue politicians for absolutely anything that they, the politicians, advocate for that later proves detrimental to the public...

Maybe not such a bad idea, this sue everything...thing.

Whaaaaaat?

A car gets stolen, is used unlawfully by a driver who is acting unlawfully and if it runs you down you can sue Toyota for making a dangerous Yaris?

Has Hilary lost her god damned mind?

Shall we start suing garden centres for selling us trees that grow large and fall down in storms, damaging property too?

a reply to: markosity1973

That's the point. She hasn't lost her mind.

I don't like her. At all. But I'll never make the mistake of thinking her crazy, or unintelligent. She's neither. Which makes it very scary if she does, indeed, think this.

Personally, I think it's being misrepresented, as I've only found one source. The one the OP used. Everything else uses suing auto makers as a logical follow on to the ability to sue firearms manufacturers.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: markosity1973

That's the point. She hasn't lost her mind.

I don't like her. At all. But I'll never make the mistake of thinking her crazy, or unintelligent. She's neither. Which makes it very scary if she does, indeed, think this.

Personally, I think it's being misrepresented, as I've only found one source. The one the OP used. Everything else uses suing auto makers as a logical follow on to the ability to sue firearms manufacturers.

It's not misrepresented, it's purposely made up BS.....click bait.

It's borderline satire.

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton really is making that argument.

She’s just targeting a different industry, and Bernie Sanders is cravenly following her lead.

More realistically though, as cars get better at driving themselves it may become a reality that people begin endorsing such a way to hold manufacturers accountable for accidents caused by the vehicle

This one time....
In the bathroom....
After taking a dump and while wiping my butt with a particular brand of TP....
One of my fingers lost grip and went up my @$$.

Even though I enjoyed it....
Could I sue for that?

Daddy needs a new car.

More realistically though, as cars get better at driving themselves it may become a reality that people begin endorsing such a way to hold manufacturers accountable for accidents caused by the vehicle

I can see a definite case for suing manufacturers of autonomous cars in the future.

Remove the variable, unpredictable and uncontrollable human element from control if the vehicle and then the manufacturers are definitely responsible for the safety of passengers and other road users.

Off topic, but autonomous cars freak me out. How easy will it be for terrorists to send in car bombs then ??

originally posted by: markosity1973
Off topic, but autonomous cars freak me out. How easy will it be for terrorists to send in car bombs then ??

It's all about the martyrdom with terrorists though. That's the ultimate in dedication, dying for your cause. Regardless of ideology.

You know, now that I'm really putting forth some thought into it I could imagine a gun-manufacturer being held liable if they were to try and implement some sort of safety mechanism into firearms. Something like a Judge Dredd gun that knows who the owner is and only fires from the owner.

Unfortunately, the only technological progress that guns have made in the last two centuries is making them better at killing people.

ETA: Apparently the technology has been around for over a decade; Gun control: the NRA wants to take America's smart guns away

Engage Armament announced it would start carrying the iP1 on May 1st. It backpedaled less than 24 hours later, after gun-rights advocates lashed out on Facebook and called the store, threatening to shoot Raymond, his girlfriend, and his dog.

However, there is immense pressure not to be the first to sell them. That’s because of a New Jersey law passed in 2002 known as the Childproof Handgun Law, which says that all guns sold in New Jersey must be state-approved smart guns within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. The goal was to make smart guns mandatory as soon as the technology existed. Officially, no smart gun has been sold in the US yet — meaning if Raymond had sold one, it would have triggered the clause in New Jersey.

a reply to: xuenchen

Can I sue my internet service provider for allowing me to read this thread?

originally posted by: Barzad
Wow... just wow...

Yeah.
I thought this couldn't possibly be true when I saw the title.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Yeah.
I thought this couldn't possibly be true when I saw the title.

It's not true though. Or am I missing the joke/sarcasm?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I knew something wasn't quite right with O.P's title..ah Xuenchen sooner or later we will learn to love him..

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I knew something wasn't quite right with O.P's title..ah Xuenchen sooner or later we will learn to love him..

I'll love him sooner if all his OP's start getting automatically put into the HOAX bin where they belong.

This has to be an onion like satire piece.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Hillary is pouring on the old "Let's sue the bastards" theme.

Lately it's been about suing gun manufacturers.

Now it's about suing car makers when the car is used as a "weapon of choice" even if it's accidental !!!!

When will these lawyers give it up?

I imagine something like this would cause millions of lawsuits one after another.


Clinton Campaigns To Allow Hit-And-Run Victims To Sue Car Makers

Campaigning in South Carolina today, Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton argued that accident victims and people who were intentionally run down in hit-and-run attacks with vehicles should be able to sue the automotive industry for damages incurred.

Clinton pointed out that almost every vehicle sold in the United States is capable of exceeding the speed limit and may be obtained by criminals second-hand, and often times illegally, to justify her position.

“So far as I know, the car industry and car dealers are the only business in America that is totally free of liability for their behavior. Nobody else is given that immunity. And that just illustrates the extremism that has taken over this debate.”

SUE 'em ALL !!!

Is she is totally out of her mind?

She wants to be prez real bad. lol!

a reply to: xuenchen

Wow...

It is almost as if Hilary wants her party and her platform to look as stupid as possible. If I facepalm hard enough to encompass my feelings about this, my hand will go clear through my skull.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: xuenchen

Wow...

It is almost as if Hilary wants her party and her platform to look as stupid as possible. If I facepalm hard enough to encompass my feelings about this, my hand will go clear through my skull.

Hi TrueBrit it's not true Masonic already debunked it on the 1st pg some one was just taking a piss on her position on gun control and applying it to cars.

a reply to: Spider879

My sincerest apologies!

Disregard my twaddle everyone.

a reply to: xuenchen

Personally, I think every politician that makes a campaign promise that doesn't follow through should be charged with breach of contract and sued, or impeached or fired (from a canon into shark infested waters lol). It's all good ;-)

Cheers - Dave