CyborgZeta

Even if Hillary had poor health and could possibly die shortly after getting into office, the argument could be made that a Kaine Presidency would still be better than anything Trump.

I don't really think she cares. She apologized, but I doubt she's truly sincere. Quite a few Democrats, and a bunch of her supporters probably agreed with her. Not only that, but those people were never going to vote for her, and she theoretically does not need them to win the election.

I'm really trying to avoid saying stuff since I don't belong here, but I find Kasich's story of "being the most powerful Vice President" pretty ridiculous. We only have the word of Kasich and his team, neither of whom like Trump at all, and I'm supposed to believe that? Give me a break. Furthermore, I'd consider the VP even more of a figurehead than the President. The VP's job is mainly to preside over the Senate, and even Joe Biden rarely does that himself.

Say what you will about Trump, but if I'm supposed to believe Hillary represents working-class people, then I'm not seeing it. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising.html?

So much for Trump's flip-flop on immigration.

I don't recall Jeb wanting a wall.

He doesn't have to, because people in America already do it themselves. Whether knowingly or unknowingly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#United_States_2 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36472454 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/05/17/on-the-anniversary-of-brown-v-board-new-evidence-that-u-s-schools-are-resegregating/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/meltingpot/melt0222.htm Tribalism is a powerful force, and I suspect it will only get stronger in the US as time goes on. There was actually a book on the subject written back in 2004 that made some interesting points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Are_We%3F_The_Challenges_to_America%27s_National_Identity

I apologize, I phrased that sentence wrong; no need to get testy. What I meant to say was that the immigrant population is much smaller than the native population. Sorry, still requires a subscription for me.

Considering the immigrant population is dwarfed by the native population, it should be a given that they would statistically commit less crimes than US citizens. Also, WSJ requires a subscription to read.

There were Iraqi refugees in Kentucky that were later revealed to have links to terror. http://abcnews.go.com/International/terrorists-refugee-program-settle-us/story?id=35252500 This happened before I moved here, but the Obama administration temporarily suspended refugees from Iraq as a result.

I won't vote for Clinton because I don't trust her, among other things. If we use TPP as an example: she says she opposes it, but I have no reason to trust she'd continue to oppose it if she won. Once she knows she has power, she can do whatever she wants. I'm sure you'd say the same about Trump, but I'd rather take the risk with an unknown than a known. While this isn't the McCarthy era, I'm personally tired of Russia still being used as a boogeyman in US politics. I'd be more concerned with Hillary's potential ties to Saudi Arabia, which is far worse than Russia, as far as I'm concerned. I have my reasons for voting Trump, but if I wasn't voting for him, I'd just stay home. Third-party candidates have no chance, and my state is going to go red regardless of what I do.

Almost feels like we're back in the era of McCarthyism. Personally, I don't really care what's in Trump's tax returns. Whether he releases them or not, whether he has business connections to Russia or genocidal aliens from Venus, nothing would make me suddenly want to vote for Hillary.

We already do background checks outside private sales, and mentally ill individuals are banned from purchasing guns. Regardless of how the poll gets its sample size, those two proposals are what gets bipartisan support in the poll. However, I'm wondering if the pollsters are not phrasing the questions right. Universal background checks on a nationwide level would be considered stricter gun control; and that same poll shows that when you propose stricter gun control, opinions are nowhere near unanimous. If that is the case, then my opinion would be that I disagree with laws that restrict or ban gun ownership. However, I do not live in Europe, so I am not going to tell the people there what laws they should or shouldn't have. They have their own cultures and their own reasons for the gun laws they have. The same can be said of the US.

If they're armed, yes, I would not hesitate to shoot someone who's broken into my house and threatens my family. If they're unarmed, then what happens depends on them. If an intruder somehow shot me first, then there's nothing I can do about that, but my family is armed so someone is bound to get them. Either way, I'm on the second floor, so no one is likely to ever get the drop on me. I also keep my Glock next to my bed, so I can grab it quickly in an emergency. I don't live in Europe, but I think countries like Switzerland and the Czech Republic have decent gun laws; the Czech Republic even accepts the use of firearms for self-defense. If I were to live in Europe, the Czech Republic probably sounds like the best place for me to be if I wanted to enjoy similar gun rights. What type of gun is used for home or self-defense depends on whatever the person feels comfortable with. Although for self-defense, handguns are pretty much your only real option, due to being easily concealed. In some states, like my own, you are legally allowed to open carry anything (pistol, shotgun, rifle, whatever), but the average person isn't going to use anything but a handgun for self-defense. I'm considering getting a CCW permit myself in the future, but I'm not sure yet. Most people who conceal carry use compact or subcompact pistols or revolvers, but I prefer full-size pistols due to them fitting better in my hands; full-size doesn't lend itself as well to being concealed.

The link you posted says opposition to universal background checks is primarily because it would require checks even for a private transfer between individuals. So, someone gifting their firearm to a friend or family member, would require the recipient to go through a background check. The idea is also to close the "gun show loophole", which is basically just non-FFL holding (private) citizens looking for a place to sell their firearms; and is technically not a loophole, since the law says private sellers are not required to perform background checks. Some states, however, already require universal background checks. Interestingly, there was a poll done when a gun control bill failed in Congress. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/04/24/why-the-american-public-isnt-mad-as-hell-about-the-failure-of-the-gun-bill-in-numbers/ It appears like polls asking people about specific ideas gets wide support, but when they actually try to pass legislation for gun control, the usual partisan split happens.

It's ineffective because criminals will always find a way to get access to guns. I don't think increased gun control will work, but that doesn't mean I'm advocating for more guns either.

Never said it did.

Exactly. Criminals will always find a way to circumvent the law and acquire guns.

It is a federal felony to sell a firearm to someone who is not a resident of your state. It is also against the law for someone in California to buy a gun out of state and bring it back to California.

My right to own firearms and use them to defend myself and my property; particularly since I'm out in the country, and the local police cannot respond quickly enough. If someone or something breaks into my house, I'm legally allowed to make them regret it. In addition to reasons like those, some people use guns to hunt. Others use them for sport, or recreational shooting. That's just part of having freedoms. I'm sure we could get into a circular discussion on other aspects of the right own guns, so we'll leave it at that. You are kind of contradicting yourself here. You say semi-automatic firearms should not be banned...and then say they should be banned. If you're definition of a military grade firearm is something like an AR-15 or an AK, then those are only semi-automatic. Fully automatic firearms became prohibited in 1986, so to get one, you'd have to buy one that was made before that; and those are very rare and expensive. You also have to jump through a fair bit of hoops to own one. You might say "The issue with rifles like the AR-15 are the high-capacity magazines", but I personally don't agree that getting rid of them would solve anything. Very few of those magazines are registered, and banning them won't keep them out of the hands of a criminal. Reloading can also be a very quick and simple action, so 10 or 30 rounds won't make a huge difference either way.

That's actually a pretty good idea. Someone should make it happen.

Breitbart and Huffington Post are the worst, but I have a had time even taking CNN at their word lately.

It's possible that Bernie could've won the primaries had been on the attack from the beginning. Then again, I think part of his problem was that he was too far left for a lot of registered Democrats.

Huh, I didn't know Clinton had even made such remarks back in 2008.

We know polls don't reflect actual turnout. I imagine a lot of the polls showing Remain as being favored asked a lot of people, like millennials, who said they'd vote Remain but didn't actually turn out to vote (millennials in the UK had the lowest turnout in the referendum). Another thing I'm wondering is how certain polls are conducted. Like for Georgia polls, are they oversampling people from Atlanta? Outside of Atlanta, Georgia is a pretty red state, and I can't imagine it going blue despite what polls suggest.