Official Current Affairs & Politics thread

[Hello Brooklyn]

Wait, so let me get this straight. You come on this board demanding for tangible evidence of corruption of the Democratic Party. Tangible/verifiable evidence is then presented that actual party leaders were fired & investigated by federal agencies over. You then simply state that you don't believe the evidence is valid, and yet you cannot provide a single impartial source to dispute the veracity of the leaked documents?

That's actually quite a clever debate tactic to simply go around saying things aren't true without presenting any impartial source of evidence whatsoever that supports your position

I don't consider unverified Wikileaks reports accompanied with explanations of the emails from a Right Wing website to be legitimate evidence.

Even if we assume the emails are authentic (and there is no evidence they are), they don't support the ridiculous claims you are making.

For example, saying that Hillary willingly took money from countries that supported ISIS.

There is NO EVIDENCE that the government of Saudi Arabia supports ISIS. That's complete bull.

Again, I don't have to provide sources saying it isn't authentic. You have to provide evidence that is.

Have you provided any evidence that the Wiki Leaks emails are authentic.

No, but you want me to provide evidence that it isn't. As if it's possible to prove a negative.

What do you want me to prove next? That God doesn't exist?

[shakendfries]

Wait, so let me get this straight. You come on this board demanding for tangible evidence of corruption of the Democratic Party. Tangible/verifiable evidence is then presented that actual party leaders were fired & investigated by federal agencies over. You then simply state that you don't believe the evidence is valid, and yet you cannot provide a single impartial source to dispute the veracity of the leaked documents?

That's actually quite a clever debate tactic to simply go around saying things aren't true without presenting any impartial source of evidence whatsoever that supports your position

I don't consider unverified Wikileaks reports accompanied with explanations of the emails from a Right Wing website to be legitimate evidence.

Even if we assume the emails are authentic (and there is no evidence they are), they don't support the ridiculous claims you are making.

For example, saying that Hillary willingly took money from countries that supported ISIS.

There is NO EVIDENCE that the government of Saudi Arabia supports ISIS. That's complete bull.

Again, I don't have to provide sources saying it isn't authentic. You have to provide evidence that is.

Have you provided any evidence that the Wiki Leaks emails are authentic.

No, but you want me to provide evidence that it isn't. As if it's possible to prove a negative.

What do you want me to prove next? That God doesn't exist?

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[MrDollarBills]

First of all, i'm not a blind Sanders follower, I said more than once that I believed that some tenets of his platform are waaaaaaay too idealistic (like free college, for instance) and his policies would increase my personal tax burden (which I was and still am willing to endure if it means for the better good of this country overall). Let's not get into that kind of rhetoric when you've been up in here pulling that blind Clintonite act to perfection. You have your reasons for liking Clinton, I have mine for liking Sanders, doesn't mean I'm a blind follower of the man. Save that kind of stuff for the nutjob Trump cultists who can no longer establish fact from fiction, because we're on the same side tbh.

Regarding suing gun makers, the whole premise of holding them liable for the actions of an individual is ridiculous. If a gun backfires and kills a person, yes you should be able to sue the manufacturer for a defective product being sold, I personally don't believe that they should be exempt from liability in that case. That is a different story from someone taking a gun and shooting up a mall. Are you going to sue a knife manufacturer or a baseball bat maker if someone decides to murder their wife or husband after an argument? No, so why would you sue a gun maker for someone misusing their product? Are you going to sue the makers of Jack Daniels if someone takes a bottle, bashes it over another person's head and cracks their skull open? It's ridiculous.

Sanders being against certain parts of the gun rights debate (suing manufacturers, 5 day waiting period), and being for others (assault rifle and magazine ban) is consistent with a moderate approach to 2nd amendment rights. It is one of the reasons why people in the flyover states listened to him.

Obama called Hillary "Annie Oakley" back in 2008 because she was pandering hard to rural area democrats and independents by painting herself as some pro 2nd amendment vanguard. Then all of a sudden 8 years later she's attacking Sanders for his moderate stance on the issue. Obama clowned her for it. Wasn't the first of her dramatic flip flops either. She tried to paint herself as a friend to white working class America and was dog whistling her ass off back in the 08 primaries. She went from "anti elitist" liberal to elitist liberal who stays with a bottle of hot sauce in her purse in 8 years time, if anyone is a fraud it's definitely her and not Sanders. I'll take a person with Sanders' voting record any day of the week, flaws and all. Says to me that he's on the side of the overall populace.

Ok well I'm glad you're willing to be objective then. And no I haven't been pulling the blind Clintonite act to perfection. I've admitted that Hillary has changed her views on certain issues.

But so has Sanders. That's the whole point.

Second of all, you're not understanding what the legislation was about. The gun industry has a special privilege that nobody else has.

Why should gun manufacturers have immunity from law suits when no other industry does? Couldn't there conceivably be a situation in when the design of a product can be blamed for something?

Beyond the basic injustice of depriving victims of gun-industry harm access to courtrooms—access that is available to victims of negligent acts by other industries—civil litigation is also important to incentivize industry actors to act responsibly; take steps to prevent negligent and criminal use of their products; and improve product safety. Prior to the enactment of PLCAA, civil lawsuits were used successfully against the gun industry to secure the adoption of new safety measures and other best practices

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2016/01/15/128949/immunizing-the-gun-industry-the-harmful-effect-of-the-protection-of-lawful-commerce-in-arms-act/

Nobody is arguing that anyone should be able to sue gun manufacturers for others using a gun. The point is the gun industry could conceivably be held to responsibility if their products are unsafe or defective. This law shields them from any type of liability in a way that no other industry is.

If you're going to continue to defend this are you in favor of giving legal immunity to every industry? Or just the gun lobby?

Giving complete immunity to the gun industry is nothing but pandering to the NRA. Sanders even admitted that he voted for this because he lives in a state where most people own guns.

Sanders voted against federal background checks. This is an extreme anti-gun control stance. The vast majority of Americans are for federal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. Sanders changed his tune on this completely.

Can you at least acknowledge that he did this?

I don't remember Hillary ever going against the Brady Bill, being against background checks, or voting to immunize the gun industry.

Clinton and Obama may have had some debates over defending the 2nd Amendment, but I didn't see her change her stance on any specific laws or issues the way Sanders CLEARLY did.


Again all politicians change their views. Pretending that Hillary is the only one to do is just stupid.

I don't understand what the problem is in adjusting your views to what people want is anyway. In fact, I think it's a good thing. Every time Hillary ran for President she conducted a listening tour so she could hear about the concerns of people before she ran.

I think politicians should be applauded when they come around on issues that are important to people.

I said that I am not in favor of gun companies being exempt from being sued for selling defective products, i.e. a gun that backfires in someone's face on a shooting range.

I already admitted that Sanders has a moderate stance on gun control. Voting against a waiting period in favor of instant background checks and voting for banning assault rifles and high caliber mags does not = anti gun control.

yes, Politicians change views as human beings do often as they gain information in life. However, Clinton's flip flopping is so egregious that it's hard to ignore. Sanders moved from his stance on background checks following the Sandy Hook Massacre because anyone with common sense would think twice about allowing guns into the hands of mentally ill people after some white terrorist shoots up a school full of children. Clinton was all for guns in 2008 solely because she wanted to muster white rural support against the educated elitist black leftist that had disdain for those folks clinging to their guns and religion.

Sanders' views have for the most part remained consistent since the 80s. Clinton, as I have said, goes where ever the wind takes her. That's why people aren't messing with her, and the Dems lost a lot of indie support to Trump because of how fraudulent she is.

Would she be better than Trump? GOD yes. I held my nose and voted for her. But she's so damn phony and corrupt that it's more of a case of her coming around to issues that are important, she's just saying whatever people want to hear, which is why she was quick to shift her platform to mimic Sanders' once she realized that liberals are gravitating towards more progressive approaches over the center/slight right path that the Democrats have been on since Bill left office.

[Hello Brooklyn]

I said that I am not in favor of gun companies being exempt from being sued for selling defective products, i.e. a gun that backfires in someone's face on a shooting range.

I already admitted that Sanders has a moderate stance on gun control. Voting against a waiting period in favor of instant background checks and voting for banning assault rifles and high caliber mags does not = anti gun control.

yes, Politicians change views as human beings do often as they gain information in life. However, Clinton's flip flopping is so egregious that it's hard to ignore. Sanders moved from his stance on background checks following the Sandy Hook Massacre because anyone with common sense would think twice about allowing guns into the hands of mentally ill people after some white terrorist shoots up a school full of children. Clinton was all for guns in 2008 solely because she wanted to muster white rural support against the educated elitist black leftist that had disdain for those folks clinging to their guns and religion.

Sanders' views have for the most part remained consistent since the 80s. Clinton, as I have said, goes where ever the wind takes her. That's why people aren't messing with her, and the Dems lost a lot of indie support to Trump because of how fraudulent she is.

Would she be better than Trump? GOD yes. I held my nose and voted for her. But she's so damn phony and corrupt that it's more of a case of her coming around to issues that are important, she's just saying whatever people want to hear, which is why she was quick to shift her platform to mimic Sanders' once she realized that liberals are gravitating towards more progressive approaches over the center/slight right path that the Democrats have been on since Bill left office.

Ok clearly you have not understood the issue with make gun manufacturers IMMUNE (something no other industry has) from legal liability.

So I'm going to move on from that.

Point being, that Bernie changed his stance on that issue and on federal background checks for political purposes.

I don't remember Sanders coming out in favor of background checks after the Sandy Hook Shooting. Can you provide evidence of this?

From what I remember, Bernie Sanders didn't come out strongly in favor of background checks until he faced political pressure from Hillary Clinton in the primary.

And he lost Connecticut in part because Hillary used Sandy Hook to paint him as pro-gun.

Clinton was not "all for guns." Clinton has always supported banning assault weapons and federal background checks. Can you find evidence to the contrary?

You keep saying Sanders never changed his stance on issues, but I just proved to you that Sanders changed his stance significantly on guns during the Democratic Primary, because of political pressure from Hillary.

Bernie also changed his stance on immigration. He voted against immigration reform in 2007.

And he never talked about economic racism, until the Democratic Primary. In fact, African American groups in Vermont claimed that he refused to meet with them or listen to their concerns. They claimed they were "invisible" to him.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/vermont-s-black-leaders-we-were-invisible-to-bernie-sanders.html

His stances on immigration and racism are important reasons why he did horrifically with Hispanic and African American voters.

Hillary talked about those things from the start of her campaign.

Overall, do I think Hillary has changed her opinion more than Sanders. Yes probably.

But Sanders did much of the same "pandering" you keep clamoring about in the Primary.

[MrDollarBills]

sigh...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

I do not (personally) believe that a gun manufacturer should be held responsible if someone commits a crime with a gun. Guns are solely for the use of authorized sport hunting, collection, and self protection. If someone misuses it, I don't see why the gun maker should be held liable. they are the only industry that gets that immunity because they make lethal weapons. it's actually common sense if you ask me, unless you're going to outlaw gun ownership i see no reason to have people in court suing a gun manufacturer.

Also, while I already knew that Sanders was spotty on immigration (he sided with US Labor union concerns), he has indeed spoken at length about racial disparities in the criminal justice system, especially regarding drug laws. That being said, I've also heard criticism of him unwilling to speak about reparations and the criticism from Vermont african americans. I think the latter concern is very valid and something he would have had to explain his way out of in a general election, but the former is something I personally don't care for because I don't want a handout from anyone. I think ultimately, his focus on income equality does get to the root of the problem since a lot of issues facing minorities, and this also includes asians who have a high % of people in poverty that no one talks about (due to the false "model minority" myth spread by white supremacists), are mostly socioeconomic and that is the more pragmatic approach. in my opinion. why?

Because frankly, this country is too goddamn racist (and this includes white liberals who claim to be better than your average racist conservative trailer trash but a lot of them aren't) to have candidates coming out preaching direct concerns for minorities and putting them before the white populace's (aka "working class americans") concerns at large, even Obama had to back away from addressing black community concerns directly and he got hammered for it by (so called) black leaders. There will not be a candidate for a long, long time who comes out directly as a champion of american minorities until the demographic shift happens in full.

Now regarding Hillary...oh yeah, she talked about those things, of course. She had blacks and latinos eating out of her hand, why, I don't know, but more than likely its the folks that don't realize what Bill Clinton did back in the 90s to target and incarcerate blacks and latinos at an alarming rate...so I really don't take her concerns for black and latino americans seriously.

[shakendfries]

I'm not interested in spending time going through all of your Russian propaganda.

Wikileaks is nothing but a scheme by Putin/Russia to help Trump win.

All of our intelligence agencies have admitted that Russia interfered with our election. And Trump openly encouraged them to interfere with our election.

We don't know what from these documents are or are not true.

But we do know all they are is an effort from Russia to elect Trump. And they succeeded.

Hello Brooklyn, is that you?

Watch on YouTube

[tonman]

sigh...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

I do not (personally) believe that a gun manufacturer should be held responsible if someone commits a crime with a gun. Guns are solely for the use of authorized sport hunting, collection, and self protection. If someone misuses it, I don't see why the gun maker should be held liable. they are the only industry that gets that immunity because they make lethal weapons. it's actually common sense if you ask me, unless you're going to outlaw gun ownership i see no reason to have people in court suing a gun manufacturer.

Also, while I already knew that Sanders was spotty on immigration (he sided with US Labor union concerns), he has indeed spoken at length about racial disparities in the criminal justice system, especially regarding drug laws. That being said, I've also heard criticism of him unwilling to speak about reparations and the criticism from Vermont african americans. I think the latter concern is very valid and something he would have had to explain his way out of in a general election, but the former is something I personally don't care for because I don't want a handout from anyone. I think ultimately, his focus on income equality does get to the root of the problem since a lot of issues facing minorities, and this also includes asians who have a high % of people in poverty that no one talks about (due to the false "model minority" myth spread by white supremacists), are mostly socioeconomic and that is the more pragmatic approach. in my opinion. why?

Because frankly, this country is too goddamn racist (and this includes white liberals who claim to be better than your average racist conservative trailer trash but a lot of them aren't) to have candidates coming out preaching direct concerns for minorities and putting them before the white populace's (aka "working class americans") concerns at large, even Obama had to back away from addressing black community concerns directly and he got hammered for it by (so called) black leaders. There will not be a candidate for a long, long time who comes out directly as a champion of american minorities until the demographic shift happens in full.

Now regarding Hillary...oh yeah, she talked about those things, of course. She had blacks and latinos eating out of her hand, why, I don't know, but more than likely its the folks that don't realize what Bill Clinton did back in the 90s to target and incarcerate blacks and latinos at an alarming rate...so I really don't take her concerns for black and latino americans seriously.

Bill Clinton is not hillary Clinton.

Gun manufacturers should not be liable. However gun manufacturers should not be influencing regulations on firearms but they do. Yeah it's not illegal but if guns don't kill people and people do, then regulating the people is a fair response. And no, additional regulation does not mean you lose your right to bear arms.

As for championing minorities, divided we fall. You can't talk just black community concerns? What about Hispanics? Asians? Everything is so fragmented.

Racism comes from ignorance and stereotypes. You go into a diverse neighborhood and you won't see as much. You go in a predominantly white neighborhood or even a predominantly black neighborhood and you see more racism. Yes minorities can be racists too. Choose diversity. Where there is opportunities to work or know those from different backgrounds take it. You'd be amazed at how similar we all are.

But yes there is still racism, sexism, etc. Even in diverse settings.

How do we get out of this? Sure I agree addressing income inequality will help. But there's nothing stopping getting an education. I dont care how lousy the school is, not graduating is on the student. Safety concerns aside. As for Asians, 11% are in poverty which is a little higher than whites but half of blacks and hispanics. It depends because some Asian immigrants come here well educated from other countries. Some come dirt poor. To me it's not a race thing. It's either a culture thing or an opportunity thing.

Just my 2 cents.

[shakendfries]

I'm not interested in spending time going through all of your Russian propaganda.

Wikileaks is nothing but a scheme by Putin/Russia to help Trump win.

All of our intelligence agencies have admitted that Russia interfered with our election. And Trump openly encouraged them to interfere with our election.

We don't know what from these documents are or are not true.

But we do know all they are is an effort from Russia to elect Trump. And they succeeded.

Hello Brooklyn, is that you?

Watch on YouTube

[Hello Brooklyn]

I'm not interested in spending time going through all of your Russian propaganda.

Wikileaks is nothing but a scheme by Putin/Russia to help Trump win.

All of our intelligence agencies have admitted that Russia interfered with our election. And Trump openly encouraged them to interfere with our election.

We don't know what from these documents are or are not true.

But we do know all they are is an effort from Russia to elect Trump. And they succeeded.

Hello Brooklyn, is that you?

Watch on YouTube

Yeah nice unavailable video.

Did you get it from Russia?

[Hello Brooklyn]

sigh...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

I do not (personally) believe that a gun manufacturer should be held responsible if someone commits a crime with a gun. Guns are solely for the use of authorized sport hunting, collection, and self protection. If someone misuses it, I don't see why the gun maker should be held liable. they are the only industry that gets that immunity because they make lethal weapons. it's actually common sense if you ask me, unless you're going to outlaw gun ownership i see no reason to have people in court suing a gun manufacturer.

Also, while I already knew that Sanders was spotty on immigration (he sided with US Labor union concerns), he has indeed spoken at length about racial disparities in the criminal justice system, especially regarding drug laws. That being said, I've also heard criticism of him unwilling to speak about reparations and the criticism from Vermont african americans. I think the latter concern is very valid and something he would have had to explain his way out of in a general election, but the former is something I personally don't care for because I don't want a handout from anyone. I think ultimately, his focus on income equality does get to the root of the problem since a lot of issues facing minorities, and this also includes asians who have a high % of people in poverty that no one talks about (due to the false "model minority" myth spread by white supremacists), are mostly socioeconomic and that is the more pragmatic approach. in my opinion. why?

Because frankly, this country is too goddamn racist (and this includes white liberals who claim to be better than your average racist conservative trailer trash but a lot of them aren't) to have candidates coming out preaching direct concerns for minorities and putting them before the white populace's (aka "working class americans") concerns at large, even Obama had to back away from addressing black community concerns directly and he got hammered for it by (so called) black leaders. There will not be a candidate for a long, long time who comes out directly as a champion of american minorities until the demographic shift happens in full.

Now regarding Hillary...oh yeah, she talked about those things, of course. She had blacks and latinos eating out of her hand, why, I don't know, but more than likely its the folks that don't realize what Bill Clinton did back in the 90s to target and incarcerate blacks and latinos at an alarming rate...so I really don't take her concerns for black and latino americans seriously.

I'm completely done discussing gun immunity with you. You're not understanding the point that gun manufacturers are unable to be held liable for their products if they are unsafe or defective.

This is again a privilege NO OTHER INDUSTRY HAS. Why should gun companies receive special treatment from everyone else?

Even if someone were to bring up a law suit blaming the manufacturer for what someone did, it would go nowhere. But when you grant them immunity from selling products which are unsafe and harmful to the general public then yes it's an issue.

The point I'm trying to make is not whether Sanders was right or wrong on racism or immigration. The point is that he completely changed his stance for the Democratic Primary.

Me and you both seem to agree on the issue of racism in the country. Sanders changed his view on this to pander to the African America community when they wouldn't vote for him.

Hillary had an entire plan to help the African American community and was working with Black Lives Matter from the beginning.

She had specific policy papers out on racial inequality and on incarceration of the African American community the minute she entered the race. And the same for immigration. That's why she won there votes and Sanders didn't.

Blaming her for a Crime Bill which Republicans wrote during her husband's Presidency is pretty stupid. Hillary had nothing to do with it.

[shakendfries]

Watch on YouTube

[MrDollarBills]

Van Jones should ask the american citizens who are currently fearful that their parents may be detained and tossed into a holding cell by ICE agents if Trump's hollow words in that speech are unifying to them. Or the legal residents and citizens who are accosted and detained just because they're non white. If you're a person of color in this country, there is very little unity to be gained from Trump's actions or his words.

The comments section in that video is cringeworthy. "How was Trump counterfactual?" basically ignoring the multitude of lies said in that speech. These Trump cultists are clearly detached from reality, it's really sad.

[MrDollarBills]

sigh...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

I do not (personally) believe that a gun manufacturer should be held responsible if someone commits a crime with a gun. Guns are solely for the use of authorized sport hunting, collection, and self protection. If someone misuses it, I don't see why the gun maker should be held liable. they are the only industry that gets that immunity because they make lethal weapons. it's actually common sense if you ask me, unless you're going to outlaw gun ownership i see no reason to have people in court suing a gun manufacturer.

Also, while I already knew that Sanders was spotty on immigration (he sided with US Labor union concerns), he has indeed spoken at length about racial disparities in the criminal justice system, especially regarding drug laws. That being said, I've also heard criticism of him unwilling to speak about reparations and the criticism from Vermont african americans. I think the latter concern is very valid and something he would have had to explain his way out of in a general election, but the former is something I personally don't care for because I don't want a handout from anyone. I think ultimately, his focus on income equality does get to the root of the problem since a lot of issues facing minorities, and this also includes asians who have a high % of people in poverty that no one talks about (due to the false "model minority" myth spread by white supremacists), are mostly socioeconomic and that is the more pragmatic approach. in my opinion. why?

Because frankly, this country is too goddamn racist (and this includes white liberals who claim to be better than your average racist conservative trailer trash but a lot of them aren't) to have candidates coming out preaching direct concerns for minorities and putting them before the white populace's (aka "working class americans") concerns at large, even Obama had to back away from addressing black community concerns directly and he got hammered for it by (so called) black leaders. There will not be a candidate for a long, long time who comes out directly as a champion of american minorities until the demographic shift happens in full.

Now regarding Hillary...oh yeah, she talked about those things, of course. She had blacks and latinos eating out of her hand, why, I don't know, but more than likely its the folks that don't realize what Bill Clinton did back in the 90s to target and incarcerate blacks and latinos at an alarming rate...so I really don't take her concerns for black and latino americans seriously.

Bill Clinton is not hillary Clinton.

Gun manufacturers should not be liable. However gun manufacturers should not be influencing regulations on firearms but they do. Yeah it's not illegal but if guns don't kill people and people do, then regulating the people is a fair response. And no, additional regulation does not mean you lose your right to bear arms.

As for championing minorities, divided we fall. You can't talk just black community concerns? What about Hispanics? Asians? Everything is so fragmented.

Racism comes from ignorance and stereotypes. You go into a diverse neighborhood and you won't see as much. You go in a predominantly white neighborhood or even a predominantly black neighborhood and you see more racism. Yes minorities can be racists too. Choose diversity. Where there is opportunities to work or know those from different backgrounds take it. You'd be amazed at how similar we all are.

But yes there is still racism, sexism, etc. Even in diverse settings.

How do we get out of this? Sure I agree addressing income inequality will help. But there's nothing stopping getting an education. I dont care how lousy the school is, not graduating is on the student. Safety concerns aside. As for Asians, 11% are in poverty which is a little higher than whites but half of blacks and hispanics. It depends because some Asian immigrants come here well educated from other countries. Some come dirt poor. To me it's not a race thing. It's either a culture thing or an opportunity thing.

Just my 2 cents.

Good points.

1) Hillary was in lockstep with Bill's policies. This isn't up for debate, her superpredators speech, which she got dragged over the coals over, is in direct reference to said policies. While I don't put stuff like the repeal of Glass Steagall on her, I think it's a fair criticism to lump her in with her husband's actions that led to mass incarceration of blacks and latinos.

2) Totally agree with you about gun lobbyists and regulation. My opinion that suing a manufacturer is stupid is separate from the actual influence that these people have on congress. I think that the level of corporate influence on our lawmakers is unacceptable.

3) I've been knee deep in diversity from the time I was 6 years old, from school to college to my current professional life. I'm not the one who needs diversity training mind you, i know how similar we are despite aesthetic and cultural differences. And I know that minorities can be racist. I've seen it with my own eyes, blacks being racist to whites, anti blackness from latinos and asians, it goes all ways. But it doesn't really change the fact that this country has a serious racism problem to the point where you have people rallying around a candidate whose whole platform of "make america great again" is a code word for maintaining white supremacy over those that aren't.

4) I agree with you on education, no one's ethnicity is preventing them from getting ahead. Socioeconomically it's a different story. With students, unless you're the 1 in a million girl or boy that says "you know what? i don't want this for myself" and pulls themselves out of the crapper, it starts with the support system at home, and not in the classroom. Lots of kids go to school in poor environments (and this is not exclusive to minorities, white poverty is something that gets brushed under the rug but these people are just as **** ed up in life) where they're coming to school with PTSD from physical abuse, verbal abuse, or sexual violence, malnutrition, and god knows what else. It's not as easy as we can make it sound for some of these kids to escape the cycle of poverty.

oh yeah, check the stats on Asian poverty, especially in the major cities:

http://nextshark.com/asian-americans-poorest-minority-group-new-york-city/

The model minority myth allows for serious issues and concerns to go unchecked and ignored.

[MrDollarBills]

sigh...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

I do not (personally) believe that a gun manufacturer should be held responsible if someone commits a crime with a gun. Guns are solely for the use of authorized sport hunting, collection, and self protection. If someone misuses it, I don't see why the gun maker should be held liable. they are the only industry that gets that immunity because they make lethal weapons. it's actually common sense if you ask me, unless you're going to outlaw gun ownership i see no reason to have people in court suing a gun manufacturer.

Also, while I already knew that Sanders was spotty on immigration (he sided with US Labor union concerns), he has indeed spoken at length about racial disparities in the criminal justice system, especially regarding drug laws. That being said, I've also heard criticism of him unwilling to speak about reparations and the criticism from Vermont african americans. I think the latter concern is very valid and something he would have had to explain his way out of in a general election, but the former is something I personally don't care for because I don't want a handout from anyone. I think ultimately, his focus on income equality does get to the root of the problem since a lot of issues facing minorities, and this also includes asians who have a high % of people in poverty that no one talks about (due to the false "model minority" myth spread by white supremacists), are mostly socioeconomic and that is the more pragmatic approach. in my opinion. why?

Because frankly, this country is too goddamn racist (and this includes white liberals who claim to be better than your average racist conservative trailer trash but a lot of them aren't) to have candidates coming out preaching direct concerns for minorities and putting them before the white populace's (aka "working class americans") concerns at large, even Obama had to back away from addressing black community concerns directly and he got hammered for it by (so called) black leaders. There will not be a candidate for a long, long time who comes out directly as a champion of american minorities until the demographic shift happens in full.

Now regarding Hillary...oh yeah, she talked about those things, of course. She had blacks and latinos eating out of her hand, why, I don't know, but more than likely its the folks that don't realize what Bill Clinton did back in the 90s to target and incarcerate blacks and latinos at an alarming rate...so I really don't take her concerns for black and latino americans seriously.

I'm completely done discussing gun immunity with you. You're not understanding the point that gun manufacturers are unable to be held liable for their products if they are unsafe or defective.

This is again a privilege NO OTHER INDUSTRY HAS. Why should gun companies receive special treatment from everyone else?

Even if someone were to bring up a law suit blaming the manufacturer for what someone did, it would go nowhere. But when you grant them immunity from selling products which are unsafe and harmful to the general public then yes it's an issue.

The point I'm trying to make is not whether Sanders was right or wrong on racism or immigration. The point is that he completely changed his stance for the Democratic Primary.

Me and you both seem to agree on the issue of racism in the country. Sanders changed his view on this to pander to the African America community when they wouldn't vote for him.

Hillary had an entire plan to help the African American community and was working with Black Lives Matter from the beginning.

She had specific policy papers out on racial inequality and on incarceration of the African American community the minute she entered the race. And the same for immigration. That's why she won there votes and Sanders didn't.

Blaming her for a Crime Bill which Republicans wrote during her husband's Presidency is pretty stupid. Hillary had nothing to do with it.

1) Are you one of those people that just ignore counter point information being presented to you if it doesn't suit your confirmation bias (like you did with the wikileaks information that was posted)? because I just posted info from the actual LAW that says that they can be held liable for defective products.

2) I don't think that they should be given special treatment. I just don't think that they should be sued for someone misusing a gun. Unless you're going to ban firearms, why should people be allowed to sue a firearms maker for someone using a gun for anything other than sport hunting, collecting, or self defense? They aren't immune from protection if they put a defective firearm out on the streets, so what are you so upset about? They make lethal weapons, similar to a knife manufacturer, a crossbow maker, etc. If someone uses those items in a murder are you going to hold the maker liable? No, it's stupid, nor is it special treatment. Do we hold liquor companies liable when some jackass gets buzzed up and kills some innocent family because they decided to drive home drunk?

3) Hillary's plan and her support for BLM is fine, despite the fact that BLM was pretty skeptical about her actually doing anything. And sorry, I'm not going to ignore the fact that she made that "superpredators" speech that was in implicit support of her husband's crime bill and act like she can be absolved from it. She supported it, it ended up doing serious damage to black and latino urban communities. And who cares if the Republicans wrote that bill? Bill signed off on it, Hillary supported it openly, and serious damage was done.

4) I agree with you on Sanders and the changes he made, etc. It's a fair point. I just agree with him on focusing on income equality because I think he knows just exactly is the cause of many of the problems facing all americans struggling in rural and urban communities and favors that over identity politics. I actually think that going that route will do more if you can get everyone on the same page instead of focusing on skin color and ethnic differences when the problem is very much the same, socioeconomic inequality, lack of access to decent education, and opportunity.

[13th Man]

I have to agree with shakendfries' posts in this thread for the most part. I know that this opinion may not be popular here but here it goes anyways:

*disclaimer I am Canadian and don't have as much of a vested interest as you guys but I think that Trump deserves a chance at least.

Trump is not without flaws and likes to toot his own horn every opportunity that he gets, everybody knows that....but I think he has good intentions for the American people and deserves to be able to implement his vision or plan for the country.

A couple of other notes:

- I am an IT Security professional being working in this field for 15 years. Wikileaks is a legitimate source. You can argue about their ethics in releasing such information but the content of the info has always been 100% accurate. The Dems can never attack the content so they to discredit the source. The DNC did conspire to go against Bernie during the primaries, it wasn't a fair fight at all and Wikileaks exposed this.

- The MSM have been absolutely disgusting especially CNN, railing on him 24/7 over the past year. I used to watch CNN religiously back in the Gulf War days and how far they have sunken. They have a clear agenda and don't even try to hide it anymore.

- The stock market has been surging to record highs under Trump but you won't hear too much of this from the left, they will say it's from Obama's tenure and that Trump had nothing to do with it. The problem is that the MSM have been bashing him so much that even when he gets something right, they will not report it because it doesn't fit into their narrative.

Obama's had his 8 years, Americans should embrace their new President; they don't have to like him but at least give him a chance rather than try to bring him down at any cost. I've never been a fan of the victim mentality, "safe space" culture that was cultivated during Obama's tenure. There's a reason why people voted for Trump, I think it has gotten out of hand and the people have had enough.

[MrDollarBills]

I have to agree with shakendfries' posts in this thread for the most part. I know that this opinion may not be popular here but here it goes anyways:

*disclaimer I am Canadian and don't have as much of a vested interest as you guys but I think that Trump deserves a chance at least.

Trump is not without flaws and likes to toot his own horn every opportunity that he gets, everybody knows that....but I think he has good intentions for the American people and deserves to be able to implement his vision or plan for the country.

A couple of other notes:

- I am an IT Security professional being working in this field for 15 years. Wikileaks is a legitimate source. You can argue about their ethics in releasing such information but the content of the info has always been 100% accurate. The Dems can never attack the content so they to discredit the source. The DNC did conspire to go against Bernie during the primaries, it wasn't a fair fight at all and Wikileaks exposed this.

- The MSM have been absolutely disgusting especially CNN, railing on him 24/7 over the past year. I used to watch CNN religiously back in the Gulf War days and how far they have sunken. They have a clear agenda and don't even try to hide it anymore.

- The stock market has been surging to record highs under Trump but you won't hear too much of this from the left, they will say it's from Obama's tenure and that Trump had nothing to do with it. The problem is that the MSM have been bashing him so much that even when he gets something right, they will not report it because it doesn't fit into their narrative.

Obama's had his 8 years, Americans should embrace their new President; they don't have to like him but at least give him a chance rather than try to bring him down at any cost. I've never been a fan of the victim mentality, "safe space" culture that was cultivated during Obama's tenure. There's a reason why people voted for Trump, I think it has gotten out of hand and the people have had enough.

I'm not a fan of the sissy, outrage at everything "safe space" culture of the left either. Nor am I a fan of the alt right neo nazi authoritarian culture from the right either, which has hijacked conservatism in the United States.

That being said, there's a reason why Trump lost the popular vote and Americans from all walks of life, not just liberals, are appalled by this man, the people who he surrounds himself with, the rhetoric that he has used, and his actions thus far that have directly impacted minority americans, particularly our Muslim and Latino populations. His behavior has emboldened far right extremists. Who are "the people" that you're talking about in particular? Because to talk as if he has some kind of mandate from the American people overall, and not just white conservatives, is a bit much.

Also, in this country, it's an American's right to choose whether to "embrace" the president or not. He works for the people (allegedly), not the other way around, so he is open to be criticized, bashed, hated, ridiculed, etc. Believe me, for the last 8 years Trump's predecessor was definitely not embraced in the manner that you're talking about, in fact he was slandered, his citizenship questioned solely on the fact that he wasn't a white male, and his family was called everything from gorillas to N****rs. So, what's good for President 44 is definitely good for #45 in my book.

[13th Man]

I'm not a fan of the sissy, outrage at everything "safe space" culture of the left either. Nor am I a fan of the alt right neo nazi authoritarian culture from the right either, which has hijacked conservatism in the United States.

That being said, there's a reason why Trump lost the popular vote and Americans from all walks of life, not just liberals, are appalled by this man, the people who he surrounds himself with, the rhetoric that he has used, and his actions thus far that have directly impacted minority americans, particularly our Muslim and Latino populations. His behavior has emboldened far right extremists. Who are "the people" that you're talking about in particular? Because to talk as if he has some kind of mandate from the American people overall, and not just white conservatives, is a bit much.

Also, in this country, it's an American's right to choose whether to "embrace" the president or not. He works for the people (allegedly), not the other way around, so he is open to be criticized, bashed, hated, ridiculed, etc. Believe me, for the last 8 years Trump's predecessor was definitely not embraced in the manner that you're talking about, in fact he was slandered, his citizenship questioned solely on the fact that he wasn't a white male, and his family was called everything from gorillas to N****rs. So, what's good for President 44 is definitely good for #45 in my book.

That's fair, I can understand where you're coming from, however I have a different view of things.

Imo, the left have been far less receptive to Trump, egged on largely by the mainstream media. I see the hate all over the news, radio, social media (Facebook) and even in person, and it's not going to let up any time soon. They resort to violent protests, riots and such. The Canadian news outlets are relentless as well, it's like they already have an agenda or pact in place or something. The MSM cannot be trusted. Leading up to the election, they all had Hilary winning by a landslide and when reality set in which went against their narrative, they double down and even try to push harder against what the country is founded upon. People saying things like "He's not my President" etc. I actually believe that the huge media bias had a negative effect for Hilary as many people that were on the fence rebelled against their dishonesty.

I'm an immigrant and minority myself and I take pride in being a valuable contributing member to society. I'm sorry but I have very little patience for criminals and religious extremists. If I could deport the hard criminals and terrorists (even from my own country), I would in an heartbeat. It pisses me off when I see pussified liberals not even wanting to call a terrorist a terrorist. They interviewed these millennial college kids who instead of calling a spade a spade, they referred to them as confused individuals that require a safe space to hide at.

I actually don't have a huge gripe against Obama but definitely have an issue with Hillary Clinton. I didn't think Obama was the best President but he certainly wasn't the worst. No major catastrophic events occurred during his 8 years and both the housing and stock markets steadily climbed. Obamacare was a fail but he had good intentions. I have a huge issue with Hillary though, not because she's a women but due to the corruption, lies and untrustworthiness. She's a product of the system and a corrupt puppet, I'm so thankful that she's no longer in the picture *knock on wood*.

Anyhow, this is my take and I don't expect you to agree with them. My gf is a Hillary supporter and despises Trump and I try not to engage in political discussions with her lol. Neither of our stances will be changed because we have differing beliefs.

[Ror1997]

The way Trump is trying to get people outraged over Schumer and Obama meeting with the Russian ambassador reminds me of when my Mom was yelling at me for something and I would say "But _____ mom let's him ______"

His excuses are so childish and its probably because he didn't live a normal childhood so he never learned how stupid those excuses sound and how the adults in your life won't buy those excuses.

Everyday he finds a new way to embarrass himself and in turn the county. I like to keep my political opinions to myself as I feel everyone should. But I can't comprehend how anybody could fall for this bs. That's one of the reasons I avoid this thread for the most point, because I dont want to judge somebody based on their political views. But how on earth can you support this moron.

[MrDollarBills]

I'm not a fan of the sissy, outrage at everything "safe space" culture of the left either. Nor am I a fan of the alt right neo nazi authoritarian culture from the right either, which has hijacked conservatism in the United States.

That being said, there's a reason why Trump lost the popular vote and Americans from all walks of life, not just liberals, are appalled by this man, the people who he surrounds himself with, the rhetoric that he has used, and his actions thus far that have directly impacted minority americans, particularly our Muslim and Latino populations. His behavior has emboldened far right extremists. Who are "the people" that you're talking about in particular? Because to talk as if he has some kind of mandate from the American people overall, and not just white conservatives, is a bit much.

Also, in this country, it's an American's right to choose whether to "embrace" the president or not. He works for the people (allegedly), not the other way around, so he is open to be criticized, bashed, hated, ridiculed, etc. Believe me, for the last 8 years Trump's predecessor was definitely not embraced in the manner that you're talking about, in fact he was slandered, his citizenship questioned solely on the fact that he wasn't a white male, and his family was called everything from gorillas to N****rs. So, what's good for President 44 is definitely good for #45 in my book.

That's fair, I can understand where you're coming from, however I have a different view of things.

Imo, the left have been far less receptive to Trump, egged on largely by the mainstream media. I see the hate all over the news, radio, social media (Facebook) and even in person, and it's not going to let up any time soon.

That's a matter of perception.

A lot of Trump's backlash was brought about again by a) his divisive rhetoric, b) the blatant pandering to an extremist element here in the United States that most Americans do not find acceptable, and this ranges from liberals to conservatives. How do you expect a person who alienates people in our society, surrounds himself with known white supremacists and racists, and behaves like a narcissist nutjob to be accepted at large? I certainly can't get down with any of that, for obvious reasons being a black american who comes from immigrants. While none of that is a deal breaker for you, it is for many others here in this country. I've come to rationalize a few reasons why people voted for this man, not all of them have to do with the bigotry or racism that we've seen from his alt right lunatic cult, but again...its not a deal breaker, and that is what really disturbs me about his support. How does a sitting president alienating and vilifying segments of our population not bother them? I guess each to his own though.

They resort to violent protests, riots and such. The Canadian news outlets are relentless as well, it's like they already have an agenda or pact in place or something. The MSM cannot be trusted. Leading up to the election, they all had Hilary winning by a landslide and when reality set in which went against their narrative, they double down and even try to push harder against what the country is founded upon. People saying things like "He's not my President" etc. I actually believe that the huge media bias had a negative effect for Hilary as many people that were on the fence rebelled against their dishonesty.

Most of the protests are peaceful though, honestly. Also, despite incidents happening here and there, it doesn't take away from the fact that Americans have a right to object to leadership, and a right to peaceful assembly to demonstrate against it. Authoritarianism is not what we subscribe to here, despite what you may read in the echo chamber of the far right.

Now, if the violence you're talking about involves Trump supporting neo nazis getting punched in the face, sorry that's just the cost of doing business there is no civility or discourse when it comes to nazis.

I don't trust the MSM either, a wise professor I had in college once told me to take everything that I see on the nightly news with a grain of salt. But...most of what gets reported can be corroborated with facts, which is why that they are still reliable. And frankly, this notion (not saying this about you) that everything that paints Trump in a negative light is "FAKE NEWS!!! FAKE NEWS!!" is so childish and moronic, I really don't want to get into it, especially when people are trying to use white nationalist dirtrags like Breitbart and Infowars are legitimate sources of news.

I'll gladly say that he's not my president. I'm not respecting the office of a man who's second in command is a white supremacist, or who panders to the worst segment of the american population. You may be fine with that. I'm not. And I'm not alone, despite what you may read on "non MSM" sources. I hated George W. Bush, but not once did he ever alienate non whites in this manner. Even when the wars popped off, he persisted in not alienating or attacking Muslim Americans or practitioners of Islam. He didn't divide the country in this manner, people hated him yeah, but it was nothing like this and this is all on Trump's own mouth which has given extremists an open invitation to terrorize Muslims, Jews, and PoC.

People on the fence rebelled against Hillary because she's a filthy lying piece of trash and an unelectable candidate, not because of some media slant in her favor. I hate that woman with a passion, the only reason I even held my nose and voted for her because I'm not standing in support of this narcissist lunatic alongside people who hate me just because I'm not white. This goes a lot deeper than just politics, we are talking about people supporting this man who subscribe to ethnic cleansing and call for genocide against people different than they are, or want to terrorize people because they are muslim, jewish, gay, etc. I refuse to align myself with that.

I'm an immigrant and minority myself and I take pride in being a valuable contributing member to society. I'm sorry but I have very little patience for criminals and religious extremists. If I could deport the hard criminals and terrorists (even from my own country), I would in an heartbeat. It pisses me off when I see pussified liberals not even wanting to call a terrorist a terrorist. They interviewed these millennial college kids who instead of calling a spade a spade, they referred to them as confused individuals that require a safe space to hide at.

I take pride in doing the same man. I'm the same as you (well, I'm not an immigrant but my parents are). I also have no patience for criminals and religious extremists.

Here lies the difference...I don't have an issue with deporting undocumented immigrants who commit crimes. I do have an issue with rounding up people, ripping apart families especially when the children who suffer are my fellow citizens. There is always a better way to do things than instead of invoking draconian measures from this country's barbaric past, we should be better than this. Also, I do recognize and respect the fact that most immigrants, here legally or not, come here to work, are some of the hardest workers in our society, and they contribute to our society, not take away from it. It's just a question of getting proper status. I know people who are undocumented here. They just want to work, send money home, and do right. Unfortunately, becoming a citizen or a legal resident requires a lot, and may depend on resources that many do not have, I know for a fact that if my parents didn't have residents here sponsor them, they would have never been allowed to live here for 30+ years or become citizens. It's not easy, (as you may know), so while I would want for all immigrants to become documented, citizens, or legal residents, I don't want to condemn people just trying to make a better life for themselves...nevermind their contributions to our economy.

Regarding extremists...outside of 9-11, more Americans have been mass killed by white terrorists than anyone else. Yet, Americans don't want to profile white males or view them as a threat, they only want to target, harass, and violate Muslims or people of color. That is unacceptable. Until white americans cut this hypocrisy out, and stop ignoring the growing threat in our backyard coming from the sickos who Trump and his ilk ignore, they don't have a leg to stand on by screaming about extremist terrorist when they constantly look the other way when it comes to guys that look like them. Within the last month white extremists have targeted and killed a Muslim and an Indian man in the US and Canada. Not a peep from these people about that. But they'll surely cheer on the harassment of a Muslim or a Sikh person just minding their own damn business.

I actually don't have a huge gripe against Obama but definitely have an issue with Hillary Clinton. I didn't think Obama was the best President but he certainly wasn't the worst. No major catastrophic events occurred during his 8 years and both the housing and stock markets steadily climbed. Obamacare was a fail but he had good intentions. I have a huge issue with Hillary though, not because she's a women but due to the corruption, lies and untrustworthiness. She's a product of the system and a corrupt puppet, I'm so thankful that she's no longer in the picture *knock on wood*.

I agree with you word for word. I will say that I think Obamacare needs to be fixed when it comes to lowering premiums and things of that nature, and things MUST be done about prescription drug costs and healthcare costs in general here in the US, but I also do think that it has helped a lot of people as well....and this is coming from someone who was very suspect of Obamacare, which I still view as a backdoor handout to the US insurance industry by mandating insurance.

Anyhow, this is my take and I don't expect you to agree with them. My gf is a Hillary supporter and despises Trump and I try not to engage in political discussions with her lol. Neither of our stances will be changed because we have differing beliefs.

It's cool man, we disagree on some things but I think disagreement is healthy and you can learn from others who have rational beliefs that necessarily don't vibe with yours. What I try to do though nowadays is gain some understanding from the folks that are what I'd consider "normal" conservatives, or folks who aren't alt right nutters. Like, I can rationalize why someone would support Trump, and not subscribe to that kind of stuff. What I can't rationalize is white supremacy, discrimination, ethnic cleansing, genocide, things of that nature.

[MrDollarBills]

The way Trump is trying to get people outraged over Schumer and Obama meeting with the Russian ambassador reminds me of when my Mom was yelling at me for something and I would say "But _____ mom let's him ______"

His excuses are so childish and its probably because he didn't live a normal childhood so he never learned how stupid those excuses sound and how the adults in your life won't buy those excuses.

Everyday he finds a new way to embarrass himself and in turn the county. I like to keep my political opinions to myself as I feel everyone should. But I can't comprehend how anybody could fall for this bs. That's one of the reasons I avoid this thread for the most point, because I dont want to judge somebody based on their political views. But how on earth can you support this moron.

^I can see why an ex coal miner(s) who believes (foolishly) that Trump would bring the jobs back to his neck of the woods would support him. I think they're naive, but if that goes into someone's reasoning and not the rhetoric about "making america white again", I'd be willing to listen to their concerns...even though there should be a push for tax dollars to be spent on retraining workers to work in clean energy going forward. But whatever...

Check this out. King Joffrey has gone on a tirade this morning

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

This man is UNHINGED.