My Thought So Far On The Election Part 1 · 9:13pm Mar 19th, 2016
The Primary Election is now halfway over with March 15th now passed us, and this has been an exciting, interesting, and completely unexpected election. Before I begin my thoughts on the results, I would like to state that normally I am not as upfront about my thoughts on politics as I usually tend to do my best to avoid those things online for a lot of reasons. However, I’ve been very interested and focused on how this election is going at the moment while at the same time interested in the various candidates themselves. I wasn’t this invested in previous elections but this one I feel is going to change America at the end. For better or worse I cannot say, but unlike with Obama’s run as President, I feel that change is going to take place for the next four years. I also ask that you respect my political opinions as I do with others. I’m not saying I’m right nor am I an expert in things like politics, economics, law and so forth. This is me giving my thoughts on what I am seeing and feeling with this run. While I am more of a conservative then a liberal, I believe there is good on both sides and find myself sort of a right-centralist and closer to the beliefs of the Libertarian Party.
Because of the length of this, I’m going to split this up into three parts and post them over time.
First off, I’m going to talk about the one candidate that has gotten the most attention since the very beginning: Donald Trump. If you were to tell me that Donald Trump would have been running for president five or six years ago I would have thought it was a joke. However, the reality is that Donald Trump is the leading man in the Republican Party and, after two successful Super Tuesday’s this March, looks to go all the way. Donald Trump has been perhaps the most loved and hated candidate at the same time. Those who support him are very in love with him and think he is speaking for all of us tired of big money politics. Those who hate him call him a xenophobic, racist, and misogynistic arrogant jerk who is going to ruin America. Yet for all the efforts of those trying to stop him, demean him, and outright attack him, he is still in the lead and is still the most talked about. Maybe in some way that is a good thing for him because he is always getting attention, and now that the election is halfway over with him in the lead perhaps people are seriously going to see him run for the White House. Donald Trump’s four out of five state win on March 15th shows that he has a very good chance of winning much to the agony and joy of many.
Personally, I am neither one of his supporters nor one of his haters. Would I vote for him? No, chances are I would not. Would I go out of my way to demean him like some are doing? Again, no I would not.
Donald Trump is a unique man in American politics. A man who has the wealth, power, experience, and influence to change a nation should he become its leader despite never once holding a seat of political power. Donald also is unique because of the way he has run his campaign. He doesn’t care what people think of it him or what he says, he is going to say it and damn the consequences. Donald isn’t afraid to go out there, brash and unwavering, and speak his beliefs and ideas without fear of insulting people because he feels the “political correctness” mindset is wrong. He believes that he can say what he wants, when he wants, in whatever context he wants to say it. If it insults people, he believes they should suck it up and accept that not everybody is going to like them. He doesn’t just do this with one specific group mind you, he says this about to everybody. No target demographic is safe from his brash speeches.
While I admire a person who is willing to say what he wants without fear of “political correctness”, his speeches are borderline narcissistic and spiteful. Donald Trump is arrogant and prideful to the point where he doesn’t accept blame for anything. He blames others and I do not like a man who is not willing to accept his own mistakes. While being able to stand straight, speak loud, carry a big stick, and not take any crap from somebody is a key thing I think for a president, one needs to learn to be humble, understanding, sympathetic, and open minded. Donald Trump is to aggressive for a president, and I fear that while he might succeed with that in some aspects as a leader, he will fail with that attitude in others. I don’t think he’ll doom America, make us fall into WWIII, or make a “white power” only nation. I personally believe people who are advocating that are being a bit silly and over dramatic. Many groups support him, it’s not just white people or “uneducated” people. I’ve seen and heard personally African Americans, Spanish, young, old, male and female support him. Yes, there are racists that support him, but there are also non-racists as well. There are people who haven’t gotten college degrees that like him and ones that have graduated have voted for him too. To label one person for only “racist, uneducated, white, conservatives” is unrealistic as every candidate from Trump to Sanders attracts all sort of people.
If Donald Trump, however, is the extremist of the Republican nominees, then Bernie Sanders is the one for the Democrats. Like Donald, Bernie Sander’s isn’t an “Establishment” politician and wants to create a new change for America. He too is tired of the big money politics (Although his main hatred is against Wall Street and banks) and wants to create more of a “revolution” then a return of the good old days of America. Sanders has definitely gotten attention, especially around the internet with today’s youth. Many of his supporters are Millennials who believe he is an honest politician who is going to make life better for everyone with multiple plans for social and economic justice. He has always been standing true to his word, is humble, passive, and not afraid to go up against a system alone. However, I feel that Bernie Sander’s chances of becoming president were, and still are, slim. Sanders finds himself in a tough spot as he is 314 delegates behind Clinton; 755 if you count the Superdelegates. While Sander’s fans have been spreading hope that he can win the election due to his popularity in the Mid-Western states and such, the problem is that Hillary has popular voters in the west and east still. The remaining big ones are California, New York, and Pennsylvania which have Hillary winning in high odds.
Some are comparing this to 2008’s election year where Obama was behind after March 15th and still won in the end. There is hope that Sanders can do the same thing, only I believe that he cannot. First off, each election primary is different in state order and delegate number, meaning the odds are always changing each term. Even the slightest difference can change the entire outcome. Second, Obama had more of a closer gap to Clinton at the time then Sanders does, one of the key things he had was Superdelegates to help him out. This is a task that Bernie has failed to do since the start by only gaining a small margin. Third, Obama had the financial and political support from the Democratic Party itself to run while Sanders has received very little support from them or at least not as much as Hillary is getting. And fourth, because of the numbers, Sanders will have to win at least 60% of the votes in most of the states if he is to win the election. Chances are that will not happen. Even if he wins a state, Hillary will be right behind him and will win enough delegates each time to make the win useless.
Still, Sander’s fans are loyal to him and I can see why. However, I don’t like him for a lot of reasons, mostly because I don’t agree with his ideals. I don’t want to see socialist reforms ( I am a full supporter of Capitalism), or see the government get more power than it already has. I don’t think Bernie Sanders will be able to single handily change anything even if he does make it to the White House because the entire system will just reject everything he wants. But most importantly, I think his ideas are just not possible in reality for America. I know many of my personal friends are going to disagree with me on what I am saying and I’m fine with that. But I cannot see Sanders as President nor able to really make a change.
I’m going to end part 1 here, but I’ll get to part 2 where we talk about Cruz, Kasich and Clinton next.
I really feel like this election's candidates leave a lot to be desired. Just the general attitude comes off less than charming, especially on the Republican side. I'm not even sure of any of them are particularly "good" for this country.
I would have liked Rand Paul, but he dropped out... so...
While I´m not overtly fond of Socialism, and the government gaining more power than required, I do like how he wishes to lower the cost of College tuition and debt, and raise minimum wage, though he has downsides.
One good thing is he´ll make it easier for people with illnesses like fibro milagia to get medical marijauna easier
3816203
Increasing the minimum wage will have the salutary effect of driving all those annoying inexperienced and underqualified workers out of the workforce and onto the breadlines and streetcorners where they belong. I approve wholeheartedly!
From what I can tell, both Trump and Sanders would bring strife upon the US: Trump from foreign sources, Sanders from the wealthy elite he intends to take down a notch. Both men are exceptionally intelligent, well-educated men who went to highly respected institutions (Trump at UPenn, Sanders at Chicago), which should help them look ahead, but nope.
Trump is a full-blown psychopath: no empathy whatsoever, cares only about himself, but knows how and when to play by the rules. It's kinda a prerequisite of being that successful a businessman, since empathy, laws, and regulations all get hetween one and profit. He's by no means the only major businessman who's a psychopath, but as the president, the country will take strides towards (if not indeed) becoming a fascist state. That lack of empathy and not caring about others will not help foreign relations at all
Sanders, on the other hand, wants to go after multiple full-blown paychopaths who have tremendous financial resources at their beck and call apiece. And since they don't care about hurting others, they'll do just that: hit people in the pocketbook and blame Sanders for their own self-interested fleecing of the many. What and how, though, remain to be seen.
In either case, I strongly suspect an assassination attempt.
I live in California and will vote for Bernie regardless. (College bound student here.) In my point of view, the only sane people in the elections are Sanders and Kasich, but people just don't want to support them. Also, I believe Trump will win the Republican nomination, but will lose the general elections since he's made enemies among Republicans and of course is also opposed by the Democrats. So from what I see in the general election, Trump will be fighting in two fronts. First year of voting and California's votes are finally important. I think big states like California, Texas, and New York should hold primaries before anyone else.
3816223 Like teenagers who need a job?
3816239
Yes! Stupid high school graduate kids, wanting to work and thus restricting the employment of good people, such as bureaucrats at welfare agencies! We need to keep the minimum wage high enough to ensure that only college graduates get jobs, so that the blue-collar kids can take their proper places in the lines to apply for welfare. And vote Democrat, many times each election!
3816203 I'm not sure how the presidential election will decide if weed is easier to get or not. That'll require congressional action.
Personally, I think that if Hilary is the primary then Trump will win. If Sanders is the primary he has a chance at beating Trump.
To boil it down:
-Trump is a successful psychopath (politics, business, etc have high numbers of them) that may have great ideas on fixing the failing economy.
-Sanders is a socialist that doesn't grasp how badly his budget choices would wreck the economy. Or rather, he does and realizes it'll get the .gov even more power.
-Clinton is a crook with dirt on everyone, but anyone who knows too much ends up dead around her.
-Cruz wants to fight the good fight but is still in someone's pocket.
Glad someone else is willing to say what I despise about Trump. He seems to think he is flawless and that anyone who tries to tell him what to do is wrong. Who's to say he won't attempt to defy the term limits and run for president for four terms like FDR because he thinks America likes him that much?
As for Sanders, personally I think the problem is that so many people misunderstand him. He's not a full socialist, he claims to be one but his policies in and of themselves do not fall into outright socialist territory. Plus, studies have shown that pure capitalism is never good. there needs to be some sort of control to keep the rich from wielding too much power. And if Sanders is willing to do what no one else seems capable of doing (bringing Wall Street back down a few pegs and propping up strong regulation to keep them from wrecking the economy), then I'd say he has my vote. Granted, there are some policies of his I do not agree with.
3816203 The problem with a "Minimum Wage" is that each state has a different standard of living that must be met. It would be better to not set a national standard of a certain dollar amount, because each state will be affected differently. Raising the minimum wage might do too much in some states and not enough in another, especially if it is increased to $15. I feel like that would have an adverse affect. Putting the brakes on college tuition, slashing prices, and making it more affordable for people sounds like a good idea. But Sanders has said he wants to make college debt free, which I just cannot get behind. If it is debt free, what's to stop people from exploiting the system to stay and goof off, never getting a job?
3816193 The Republican Party is too far gone to be saved, it will self destruct in a matter of months. Even if Trump wins, the GOP establishment will not cooperate with him, and a party that does not support its major candidate is a party that is doomed to failure. They also have no idea where the political wind blows on many issues, all of them except Kasich deny climiate change is a threat, and even Kasich admits he won't do anything to stop it, he'll roll back the deal Obama just worked out with all those other nations, including China. They still continue to insist that all Muslims be banned from entering the United States, never mind the fact that such an act would drive them right into the hands of ISIS. And they continue to believe in that silly "No new taxes" pledge that Norquist used to blackmail every Republican into signing even after it cost Bush 41 the 92 election (he still thinks it was Ross Perot who caused him to lose, and that isn't true. All he needed to do was explain how he was going to fix the economy, but he wasted his time attacking Clinton for being a draft dodger. Personal attacks don't mean anything if you never offer any real solutions). The Democrats are no saints either, as we're seeing with their willingness to cut illegal immigrants slack even when they know said immigrants get the jobs that hard working Americans are rightfully entitled to, and their refusal to call out the "Black Lives Matter" campaign and the modern Feminist movement for their promotion of racism and sexism towards whites and men respectively. They think that they should rewrite the scales of power so that the opressed are now the ones with all the power, which is making them into massive hypocrites. Not to mention the fact that the "Black Lives Matter" campaign has caused widespread violence because they believe it will help their cause, completely ignoring the adverse affects the race riots in Watts, Newark, and Detroit all caused for the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's.
3816292 True SPB, though if he lowers the tution, and the medical marijauna thing, that can actually help a lot of low income people who want to get an education in their passions
I only want Sanders as president for one simple thing. Basic human kindness. Only politician I've genuinely seen that from in a long damn time.
3816326 Lowering the tuition rate is fine, as is putting a halt to price gouging for medicine. There should be no reason left for colleges and the medical industry to exploit people in these tough economic times. I can at least somewhat understand the need for keeping drugs at a reasonably high price, to discourage misuse and the risk of illnesses and infections resistent to the antibotics. But when it's hard enough for people to put food on the table without working two jobs, there shouldn't be a reason to raise prices so outstandandly. In the 70's there were "Hiring Freezes" due to the economy, so I don't see why there can't be "Price Hike Freezes" for medicine and college tution in today's economy. Once things are back on track and people can make ends meet like they used, then you can start raising prices again.
"Borderline"?
Looks like someone's learned nothing from the "Bush years" about how much damage an idiot in the White house can do. I don't know the extent to which a president like Trump could potentially-damage the country, but so far, in his campaign, America's biggest mistake has been not taking him seriously as a threat.
We.
Need.
To.
Stop.
Doing.
That.
So how would you define someone who supports a narcissitic, immature, racist candidate with ill-defined, (if not, undefined) policies?
"Oppurtunistic"?
I get not calling all his supporters "white" because, quite disturbingly, there are individuals of minority groups who support him, but I think the way you're downplaying the type of audience he's playing to is rather irresponsible.
As you've acknowledged yourself, Donald Trump is a loud, boisterous, narcissist with terrible policies (what few he actually has specified). You keep trying to beat around the bush but at some point, even you have to stop and ask yourself: What kind of person can look at all the things Trump has said and done and still gladly support him?
PLEASE explain to me how they wouldn't fall into one or both categories of being either "racist" or "uneducated".
In a democratic election, superdelegates should be seen as irrelevent; either they would vote with their state - which would have them voting the way the majority of people did (thus, rendering their votes redundant), or they could vote AGAINST their state, which.........could turn ugly. When you count a candidates delegates, don't count the superdelegates.
I doubt Bernie Sanders is "anti-capitalist". I think he, like much of his supporters, is against crony capitalism. That's why you mainly see him going after Wall Street and big banks - because of the belief that the government is in the back pocket of both (among many others) which prevent it from functioning to the benefit of its citizens as opposed to a wealthy minority. Indeed, most of all of the US's biggest problems tie in some way or another back to the corrupting influence of money in politics or politicians being greased by special interest groups for political favors - this is why he keeps making mention of Hilary's list of donors.
Can you name specific policies of his you don't like that you think exemplify this?
Neither does he. His calls for a "political revolution" won't be a one-man fight, which is why he encourages people to get involved in the democratic process, for instance, by pushing a bill designating a holiday for voting.
Then the entire system is acting against the best interests and will of its people, not just him.
The fact that the establishment would be unwilling to cooperate with a candidate pushing an agenda beneficial to and popular amongst its citizens is THEIR problem, not his. To put it into perspective: What do you want him to do about them disagreeing with him - change the views that made a (hypothetical) majority of people want to elect him into office in the first place - just to placate a stubborn minority?
It makes no sense to elect someone who least represents your values as opposed to someone who does just because you think the former will have an easier time using a system filled with politicians of "opposite" political alignment - which, by the way, is what Bernie has been doing for the better part of the past 22 years.
If this were a human rights case, this might be debatable - but since it's not, arguing that a candidate with popular stances on issues will be gridlocked in their attempts to implement their policies as a reason not to support them makes no sense.
Based on what?
I disagree.
Link
3817863 I don't care for Trump, and Cruz seems a bit weird but amuses me since he pisses off the GOP so much. Either way, I'll be voting against whoever gets the D ticket. Hillary is a criminal and Bernie will take the country in directions I don't like. And that's coming from a 1st generation American of Hispanic descent.
I don't care what someone says they want to do, I look at what they have done. Case and point for Bernie voting for more government and/or appointees that cause/believe in more restrictions on freedoms.
Bernie has voted "Yea" on the following in the past 2 years from today's date. (just the key points IMO)
-Senate Amendment 2910: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015
Key point: Allows the Attorney General, without due process to restrict the 2nd amendment rights of people believed to be involved in terrorism. This is also patently illegal and unconstitutional. Additionally, given the current DOJ publications that put most conservative gun owners as potential terrorists, it does not set a good impression. Rights can only be removed through judicial proceedings, not committee. This would go around those legal protections and set precedence for removing other rights by committee.
-Senate Amendment 2908: Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2015
Attempted to define a non existent "gun show loophole" and increase the amount of legal control over firearm sales.
-Nomination of Loretta E. Lynch to be Attorney General
The same woman who has gone on record stating that free speech that is considered rhetoric towards violence should be prosecuted. Free speech should not be restricted regardless of content. Actions taken from that speech that break the law are a different thing.
Beyond that:
-No to finish the border fence with Mexico. Given that ICE has been told to stand down and let illegals enter the country, that sets a poor tone.
-No on the US VISIT system for ICE to track illegals.
-Weapons/component ban votes multiple times
-No on the keystone pipeline
-Increased EPA regulation of greenhouse gases when the power industry is crashing hard.
-Overall stance on illegals and amnesty
-Overall stance on Obamacare
3818172
I think you're undermining the significance of the last 8 words.
I will quote information on the 'H.R.1076 - Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015' from its congress.gov page found >here<:
I don't understand what's so unreasonable about that. Even though I am bothered by this line:
...I can still see the reasoning behind the bill overall and wouldn't hold it against supporters of it.
3818172
You're free to debate its constitutionality but calling it "illegal" is redundant; the entire point of proposing a bill and moving it through the House and Senate is to write it into law.
3818172
The main issue you seem to have is a general distrust of the DOJ's standards for what they will find constitutes as a "terrorist" which leads you to your slippery slope logic that we might lose more rights. It's not completely irrational given the abuses of the PATRIOT Act, but I still find it rather conspiritorial given that much of the wording in H.R.1076 is quite clear:
Either way, I think there's something wrong when we are so overprotective of our 2nd amendment rights that we're opposed to taking minor precautions against people found to be directly affiliated with or likely to commit terrorist activities.
Make no mistake, the gun show loophole is very real and while some states have corrected it, most have not.
I find your opposition to both of these proposed bills to be mainly based in conspiracy.
3818172
I believe it's important to quote her directly on the issue:
Regardless of whether or not I agree with her statements, it's disconcerting that, of all the controversial stances she's taken, you chose her desire to deter hate speech as your main issue of note against her.
3818172
Given that he calls for immigration reform that would create an easier pathway to citizenship, it's not difficult to see why he would take focus away from measures designed to keep people out of the country. (Although he does want to increase border patrol.)
3818172
I'm going to have to request a source for that one.
3818172
You mean the Keystone XL Pipeline? What's your objection to that?
3818172
Greenhouse gases are emissions that have been determined to have a measurable detrimental effect on the planet we are all living on. The impacts regulation has on the economy of the industry should be secondary in consideration to their effects on the planet.
3818172
Explain?
3818172
More specific?
I find it quite troubling that many of the issues you take with him have to do with policies that would benefit a majority of people in the country.
3819090 Going step by step through your comments. I'm actually impressed this has been so civil. I'd expected the comments section to turn to chaos by now.
-If an individual is believed to have something and it is actionable intel, then it should be acted on judicially. On paper I agree with the concept, but I disagree with the ability to write out someone's freedoms without due course of law.
-I'll give you the illegal comment.
-As a general thing, I distrust the people and political bias in the .gov. The system of government I appreciate, I just distrust those in power regardless of political affiliation. Again, if they are directly affiliated with terroristic acts it is actionable intel and need to be acted on judicially, not via committee. That is the crux of my argument. Should they get a court order, I'd have no issue with it.
-The gun show loophole. I'm asking this part honestly, what do you consider the loophole? I have over 20 years experience with firearms, including almost 8 of that as a licensed dealer. The laws on the books are fine as they are. The simple issue is the vast majority of the laws are not being enforced. That said, I am genuinely curious about your thoughts on the so called "loophole."
-As for Lynch's stance on "hate speech" again, I go back to what is legal and what is not. It is legal to say things like that. Might be an asshole move, but it is legal. I don't appreciate people believing they can infringe on any rights, regardless of their political stance.
-Immigration reform is good on paper, but there still needs to be controls on immigration and a more secure border. I'm perfectly fine with people coming to the US legally. Illegally should still end up with deportation. Currently the entire border system is fairly well useless, as drugs, firearms, and illegals flow over the border fairly easily. Then again, the open border does benefit the .gov and has ended with citizens from both the US and Mexico dead. (see Project Gunrunner and it's assortment of operations for examples.)
-I misread the US VISIT system vote, so disregard.
-Keystone XL. Properly set up , a pipeline is very safe. I've lived near the Alaska Pipeline nearly my whole life. It would have a massive economic benefit to the country.
-The EPA is already regulating several industries into the ground. I'm not saying something doesn't need to be done, just that it needs to be done in a different manor. Encouraging new technology is a good thing. Regulating others into the ground until viable and cost effective replacements are available are not. Currently EPA regulation is partially why so many companies are outsourcing to other countries because the other methods aren't cost effective.
Now in the next few decades, I believe my stance on that will change as other methods of power generation and industrial processes come online or get greatly improved. Currently however, it is a massive detriment to the economy.
-I prefer a very secure border and a very clear path for immigration. Illegals should be deported regardless. If they want to come to America, they should do so via legal methods. Bernie seems to lean more toward the global amnesty and encouraging of illegals.
-Obamacare in general at best needs a massive restructuring. At worst, complete removal. I'm not opposed to helping those that need it, there just needs to be much better controls on it. A good chunk of my family is in the medical industry, and to put it bluntly, Obamacare is killing the industry. Insurance rates are going up for a good % of people, while quality of coverage is lowering. Many small practices can't deal with the .gov billing issues so they are closing or going cash only to get around that.
And yes, I am one of those people that Obamacare could have helped but has screwed over instead. I
I'm not against the concept of it, nor against the concept of free/reduced fee colleges, etc. I am against how they are implemented, simple as that. Politically I am a moderate libertarian.
3816522 The country can only go so far on kindness, unfortunately. This isn't preschool. This isn't a place where showing kindness and compassion is useful. Sure, it makes one look good, but what will that leader do when our troops are out in the field fighting the enemy? Be nice to the enemy's leaders? Hope they'll be merciful and let this one slide?
Point is, kindness isn't as important as one would think in politics. Perhaps it's a good way to earn the popular vote and earn a good reputation. But when you're the world leader of a country, you need to be somewhat of a father. Where yes, you're loving and kind, but you also have to know when to put the foot down and be strict. Imagine a strict father. He only wants the best for you and is willing to push you to do so. But he's nice when he thinks he should be nice.
I'm just sick of the people who're voting for Hillary because she'll be the first of something. Does it really matter if she's the first female president? Hell, I think I'm more worried about potential attacks from terrorists and rival nations than Hillary's gender. We don't need Hillary JUST because she'll be the first of something. That in the end, doesn't matter one bit. If anything, it just gives bragging rights to whoever is a proud female.
I feel like being the first of something was one of, if not, the key thing that got Obama the win. He would be the first black president. That title sounded great to the liberals and Democrats of the time and they figured,
"Hey, since he'll be the first of something that means he'll be the best option!"
As of how he got reelected... Well, Romney is a friggin' moron, and there were bigger and larger amounts of fans for Obama than there were for Romney.
If you're voting for Hillary or if you're just another supporter, that's fine, whatever, but actually support her because of her plans for America. Not just for her gender. That's just stupid, really.
Hellish work week(s) + oops I forgot = delayed responses. Sorry, my bad. ^^*
I will try to minimize the amount of text quoted from your comment to make this less cluttered.
3819237
The point of a discussion is to try and enlighten or gain enlightenment. I find people tend to double down and become unmoving on their positions when discussions become heated.
3819237
I can see the law being important if someone has evidence of being related to terroristic activities but has yet to be located or stand a trial (which could indeed be pending scheduling), but in the meantime, a freeze on their 2nd amendment is advised.
When taking this bill into consideration, a good starting point of reference is the terrorist watch list and how individuals could be nominated to end up on it. I will add now that, upon further review, it's not unreasonable to be skeptical of the government's standards for what constitutes a "potential terrorist".
But the concept of allowing the Attorney General to intervene with probable cause is itself, if given proper enforcement (as I believe you'd already stated), fairly reasonable ; just as (I would hope) you'd have reservations with selling a gun to someone you know has a history of serious mental illness (but no criminal record), I think a threat assessment of individuals looking to purchase tools as dangerous as firearms is important. At worst, the provision is simply redundant and inconveniencing. But since your original point was that you didn't trust their methodology I'll give you that but maintain that the concept of the bill came from a legitimately good place and I wouldn't hold it against those who supported it.
3819237
You may have never seen it first-hand and as, what I assume to be, a law-abiding weapons vendor, you may never have partaken in it but (in some states) private sellers, under federal law, aren't required to perform background checks, ask for identification or record the transaction. All of those things are required for all Federal Firearm License (FFL) holders regardless of whether they are at their establishment gun store or a gun show. However, gun shows (to my knowledge) don't issue FFLs to private sellers, some of whom might operate exclusively at these venues, and since FFLs are required to access the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), they would be unable to perform proper background checks.
For the history of this, instead of trying to remember it all off-hand and giving a jumbled explanation, I'll simply quote wikipedia's article on the matter (found here):
3819237
Lynch's comments are particularly important because she talks about the effects hate speech can have on a political narrative, in that, certain rhetoric can, in fact, does incite violent hate crimes against groups of people (see: the effects of Donald Trump's presidential campaign). As for prosecuting hate speech, as with the last, even if I don't agree with it, I can see where she comes from - but it's worth noting that soon after she later clarified that her office would only prosecute "actions".
Still, as I'd said, I find it odd that of all the controversial positions she has, you take issue on the one where she talks about taking a stance against hate speech which could incite (and has incited) violence against a group of people...
3819237
Our current immigration policies are clearly failing and I don't think fixing it is as simple as saying "people who come here illegally should be deported". To me, that's just doubling down on policies that aren't working - not because we aren't doing enough to enforce them but because they are impractical in the long-run.
There are plenty of people who shouldn't be allowed to enter or remain here (mainly violent criminals) but under our enforcement of the current policies, we are breaking apart families or dooming refugees fleeing war zones.
Bernie Sanders isn't talking about doing away with border security altogether, he's simply calling for it to be more practical. His full list of policies can be found here.
3819237
I still cannot find anything about this "US VISIT" you're referring to.
3819237
My objection to the Keystone XL pipeline is pretty basic: We've got more than enough oil in this country. We simply need to find other ways of boosting the jobs market that have less of a direct impact on the environment.
3819237
It's been proven time and time again that companies like the ones in oil industry should not be trusted to regulate themselves as they won't always follow safety protocols put in place to protect the environment or the people living in them. They are corporations, their goal is to maximize profits at all cost as long as they can get away with it.
My point is, the amount of regulations upon an industry does not matter. What does matter is whether the regulations are necessary. Climate scientist agree that we have pretty much passed the threshold for a chance to act on climate change to prevent serious damage in a timely manner and even now around the world people are already feeling the effects of global warming. It is my understanding that efforts taken to decrease greenhouse gasses at this point are simply "damage-control". So again I must reiterate, the effects regulations are having on the economy should be secondary to the effects on the planet - although technically, a lot of the necessary "advancements" required to improve our infrastructure in things like power plants while remaining environmentally conscious already exists, it's just a matter of us implementing them.
3819237
Well, you're in luck because Bernie Sanders completely agrees with you! Even when he originally voted in favor of implementing the Affordable Care Act he knew it could easily be better but was essentially settling for a watered down version - which he'd tried to improve even before it passed (the thing about Washington Post, they usually try to paint Bernie in a negative light but this article provides an okay summary of his contributions).
Bernie has echoed every one of your points in most, if not, all of his speeches: link. What Bernie Sanders has proposed for quite some time now is a single-payer (universal) healthcare system. The best most simplistic explanation of his single-payer healthcare system I've found is in this video TYT did.
3816266 Well said.