CyborgZeta

It's hard to say how Bernie would've fared in a general. He's pretty far left, and was an admitted "democratic socialist". Socialism is still a trigger word on every age group but millennials, so I'm not sure if he'd be able to win in a general. That's not even getting into some of his policies, since his GE opponent would definitely have pounced on him for how he'd fund everything. A lot of Americans don't want their taxes increased, so Bernie could've had a hard sell. He's the current governor in Kentucky. He managed to win largely thanks to turnout being incredibly low. I'm not sure whether his opponent would've been better, but he makes some weird decisions; and likes putting weird selfies on Twitter.

I'd take Pence any day over my state's governor, Matt Bevin.

John Kasich would probably have been a good candidate to go up against Hillary. Almost any of the other candidates, barring Cruz and Jeb, would probably have fared well. Hillary is pretty unpopular, but since she's up against Trump, it balances out for her.

Breitbart is basically the conservative equivalent of Huffington Post; neither should be taken as credible, barring articles that regurgitate other sources.

It doesn't help that one of the Clintons' best friends has said he thinks Hillary will support TPP if elected. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/terry-mcauliffe-hillary-clinton-tpp-trade-226253

Yeah, for all the Trump comparisons, deporting people here illegally is not the same as what FDR did. The US, and Canada, both imprisoned legal citizens just because of their ancestry.

Uh, maybe reconsider or rephrase this statement? Science does decide what's right and wrong; it is how we learn.

Eh, that gets into another argument altogether. The Native American tribes were sporadic, the lands were largely unsettled, and there was no country when the Europeans arrived. That's not even getting into the fact that the Native Americans were descended from Asiatic peoples that crossed over into North America from Beringia. EDIT: Although I've recently learned that there's a theory suggesting that North America was first inhabited by people from Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

There's a difference between living in someone else's country, and having your country/region forcefully taken over by another country. Estonia and the other Baltic nations had every right to complain about Russians, considering the USSR forcefully took over their countries, deported their people, and imported ethnic Russians.

Not at all. But you can fight for equal rights without villainizing the majority.

To be honest, the idea of "white privilege" sounds silly to me. The US was founded by white people, and white people have been the majority since then. Of course the majority is going to be more privileged. Would you go to China and complain about "Han Chinese privilege"? How about Russia and "Russian privilege"? It's even stranger to see it in Europe, because Europe is basically the "homeland" of white people, and the countries there are comprised of white ethnic groups. Why would you go into someone else's country and complain about the people who predominately live there?

And the Democrats were also once the party of slavery and Jim Crow. There's a history of racism in both parties.

I don't know if it was classified, but there was an interesting Clinton email I saw. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 Basically, overthrowing Assad was the best way to help Israel. No? The US has done some pretty disgusting and shady things in its past, especially during the Cold War. To be perfectly honest, if I was able to, I'd move to another country; such as New Zealand, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, or Finland. Unfortunately, moving to another country is not easy (that's not even getting into stuff like a potential language barrier), and there are certain freedoms I enjoy here that aren't so readily available elsewhere. For better or worse, I'm currently stuck here.

Reminds me of some of the comments I saw when the DNC email leak happened. The same people that praised Wikileaks and Assange in the past now hated them for the leaks harming the Democrats.

Wonderful.

Disposing of Assad will just create a power vacuum that will allow ISIS to expand further. It will essentially be Iraq and Libya all over again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/hillary-clinton-will-reset-syria-policy-against-murderous-assad/ It's foreign policy proposals like this that scare me about a Clinton administration.

Not quite; you're thinking more along the lines of the American idea of a melting pot. Multiculturalism is just different cultures existing side-by-side within a given area (or country); no assimilation, just co-existence. The world is technically already multicultural and diverse, but multiculturalism is about applying that to individual counties.

Mostly in the Southwest and Southern states. Jobs like manufacturing, farming, and construction make a lot of use of cheap labor in those regions. Ironically, loss of manufacturing and industrial jobs was a problem even in the past; since those jobs moved from the Midwest and the North to the South, where it was cheaper. So those jobs moved to the South, and now they're moving out of the US altogether. Corporations are just greedy, and they'll always move to places where labor is the cheapest. Again, I don't claim to know the best solution to combat this. Bernie wanted to tax corporations more and close loopholes that favored them. Trump wants to lower taxes for corporations and provide more incentive for doing business here.

So, you're going to generalize these people based off whatever personal experience you might have? Act like cheap labor isn't actually an issue? It's easy to say, "Everyone should learn this", but not everyone is suited for those kinds of jobs. Whether it be a plumber, doctor, lawyer, whatever. It's not even just being suited for those kinds of jobs; a lot of people just can't do them, for whatever reason. I know I couldn't be a doctor, because the sight of too much blood makes me feel faint. The other issue is mobility. Yeah, a lot of these poor probably don't want to leave; but a lot of them just can't afford to, even if they wanted to. Especially if you're in a state with not a lot of opportunities in general, because moving to another state is not cheap. I don't pretend to know what ultimate solution is. Personally, I'm in favor of bringing back what industry we can. Allow people that want to do that kind of work to do them, and pay them fair wages.

The problem isn't so much that anyone can do the job, but that illegal immigrants will work for extremely low wages (with no benefits). You can't compete with that. And telling people to "adapt and go back to school" is just snobbery. A lot of poor working-class people not only cannot afford to go back to school, but are simply to old to "adapt" to new jobs. That's the problem in the Appalachia region. The region was built largely around a single industry, and when those jobs went away, people couldn't adjust because it was all they ever knew. Same with parts of the country that relied on manufacturing, or steel industry jobs. Some people have tried to adapt to new industries, and then those industries went away; or those industries decided to opt for cheap labor (illegal immigrants or H-1B visas). There comes a point where people just can't afford to have to keep re-adapting.

Failure for Muslims to integrate, or problems with multiculturalism in general, are more of a European issue than an American one. The US does not have a strong ethnic identity and culture tied to it, and literally anyone can call themselves an American. It is harder in Europe due to the various ethnic groups, languages, identities and cultures. Countries like Poland, for instance, are strongly protective of their identity and culture; so the country does not accept many immigrants. Even Merkel admitted back in 2010 that multiculturalism in Europe was a failure. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11559451

Wikileaks released some DNC voice mail recordings. Not much. Possibly just a warning shot of more to come.

I said he wasn't wrong in that I agreed that Clinton would plunge the US into more wars. Whether she would get the US involved in more (or less) conflicts than Trump remains to be seen; but her history and attitude shows she is very pro-intervention. He wants to get rid of ISIS, but he throws out a bunch of ideas. Will we get more actively involved in Iraq than we already are? He wants to work together with Russia on Syria, but to what extent? The only thing I've seen him be consistent on is bombing/air strikes on ISIS targets; with the possible addition of the families of terrorists (he says this to sound tough, but I doubt he'd actually order it done).

Nowhere did I say she was more likely to cause a war than Trump. I don't know what Trump will do, but I do know what Hillary has done (and will do).