Guys I'm scared, I was in favor of Trump but I'm pretty sure Hilary is going to end up being the next president. Hilary's support is just astronomical compared to Trump, there are way more people supporting her than people who are supporting Trump. Also the media is slamming negative publicity on Trump, even though he is still getting publicity it's not in a positive light.
I hate to admit it but I've already prepared myself to see Hilary win the election, this way when she does I want be as upset or shocked about it. I guess having a female president isn't the end of the world, we had a black president for the first time and the world didn't blow up. There are also some countries that have female leaders representing them, I know I'm just in denial and trying to make Hilary sound good but I really don't know what will happen to the country if she becomes president.
I've heard people say that nothing good will come from either Trump or Hilary being president, they'll do something to fuck up the country even more than it already is.
>>29192118
I fucking Hate Hilary, but i would rather have her than Trump. He will literally make the U.S. hated to a degree higher than what is now.
>>29192338
>beta cuck lib logic
get out reddit nigger
>>29192118
yeah just look at germany
The next leader of the us will either be:
1. old man who spergs out on twitter like an angsty teenager
2. old woman who spergs out on twitter like an angsty teenager
When are your politicians going to develop some decorum?
>>29192118
It only looks that way because she had the media in her pocket. Almost everyone I know supports trump, and I work with graduate degree/doctorate individuals on a daily basis.
>>29192338
>not wanting your nation to be protected and isolated from the rest of the plebs of the world, and only trade with the cream of the crop.
>>29192450
To be fair Trump is an anomaly and so is Hilary, in past presidential elections the candidates were a bit more reformed. I don't remember Obama being a dick and acting immature on Twitter and what not when he was running for president, if I had to say one thing about Obama he does carry himself well and acts mature about things.
Trump and Hilary have the mentalities of teenagers, like a brother and sister fighting.
>>29192381
Friends will be needed now that China and Russia are on the rise. If you are gonna pair with an asshole, constituents will rather have their president hugging an unknown dictator than a meme president. Putin at least is a likeable meme like Berlusconi.
>>29192483
Support of either candidate depends on where you live. Where I am, people support Bernie and Hillary; Donald Trump is a bad word up here.
>>29192516
>Not realizing that if everything was American made it would cost a shit load
>Not realizing that killing Capitalism is just as bad as replacing it with something else.
>Wanting to pay $120 for American made shoes
Okay
>>29192547
I just think someone who is trying to lead the biggest country in the world should conduct themselves with a degree of professionalism.
Trump is an awful public speaker and Hillary is an outright fraud.
But I guess they're both political geniuses who know their audience.
i.e. go out in public and spam stupid pep talks and the US population shit themselves like over-excited dogs
>>29192381
The only thing your are saying are insults.
Trump is blessed by Kek. Shillary can't compete agains meme magic.
>>29192516
>implying globalization is not inevitable and overall a good thing
Economies need to expand somewhere and the domestic market can only go so far. Plus, intertwined economies ensure collaboration and a necessary peace. True isolationism died in the 20th century.
>>29192577
Is $120 for shoes supposed to be expensive? That's cheap imo.
>>29192602
>political geniuses
It doesn't take a genius to understand that the people fucking love drama. Besides, the presidential election is merely a front, and has been for some while. The US government is naught but a proxy, a puppet government. All official goverments are.
>>29192118
I've supported Trump since the beginning, but also known that the odds are in Clinton's favor.
Trump is fighting an uphill battle. There's nothing we can do to help him other than be a little more vocal and be sure we vote.
We got to see how donations are a meme thanks to Comrade Sanders.
>>29192575
Yeah, no one likes to admit they masturbate but look at the porn industry.
Look at trumps poll
>>29192577
Everything won't be produced by America, that's not the goal. The goal is to tax countries who outsource work to 3rd world countries so the money goes back into our infrastructure, and consequently more jobs for said building of infrastructure
>>29192724
Tax companies, not countries
>>29192118
>and the world didn't blow up
His mismanagement of the middle east after the Iraq War brought ISIS
Russia invaded Ukraine and no one has done anything
The economy is still in the gutter after eight years
Terrorists assaulted, raped, and killed US ambassadors because his cabinet ignored the situation in Libya
He has helped perpetuate racial strife in the US and has made race relations significantly worse
>>29192750
But did you die?
>>29192791
I guess you got a point there
But I am still preparing for WWIIII
>>29192638
What would you consider Japan? America would be like that. Except with a big wall
>>29192118
Shillary is the next merkel prepare the united states of your anus because the din doos and rag heads are coming.
>>29192724
Trump's poll is not applicable anywhere but nationwide. Some states support him immensely, some absolutely hate him. My state is Connecticut, as despite the fact that he won the state, Republicans are a small minority here and our Governor is a diehard liberal. I worked the polls on the primary day and in one district there were 76 republicans and 1300 democrats. Most presidential blue states don't like him, most presidential red states do.
Or do you not understand how demographics work?
>>29192925
Japan exports all around the globe and is very active in influencing east asian geopolitics. They are not isolationist. They definitely are xenophobic with their immigration policy but not economically.
>>29192638
It died with Woodrow "I Destroyed America" Wilson.
The entire country was "isolationst" and against involvement in the war (like our founders advised us) except the bankers in New York who were lending money to Britain and didn't want to lose their "investment."
The Federal Reserve was also founded under that cocksucker's watch. Fuck Woodrow.
>>29193041
Can confirm, real US history.
she will be the next president
you don't live in a democracy, your vote doesn't matter
if you think someone so against the status quo is like trump will be president you're delusional
>>29192118
>Hilary's support is just astronomical compared to Trump
Not necessarily, Hillary would have the highest unfavorable ratings in known history if it weren't for Trump claiming that spot. Most women think she's a liar, and I think that's the case for most Americans in general. Her campaign knows it too, because the slogan they've picked up most fervently is nothing short of "Well at least I'm not Trump."
The only reason she could possibly reach the White House is if the fear of Trump is greater than America's fear of her. Any other year against any other Republican her campaign would be over already.
That's also assuming she doesn't get indicted before or after the convention, which is sure to happen given the nature and scope of what we've learned about her private email server. She basically has to get indicted under the Espionage act before she reaches the White House if America's military/spy industry wants to keep their records safe; Clinton kept Special Access information on her private, unencrypted server. That kind of information can include, for example, the real identities of spies working abroad. The kind of information that could result in their deaths if it falls into the wrong hands. If she becomes President, and without any punishment for that, what will she do next? For government officials the potential answers to that question are unthinkable.
Conventional wisdom would be that Hillary is unsinkable this election because she's in a primary against a socialist and a general against a dogwhistling buffoon, but conventional wisdom no longer applies. America's youth does not mind socialism (if Bernie's campaign is any indication they fucking love it) and they do care that Hillary's establishment power has been shitting on their candidate the entire race. And Trump, on the other hand, is giving a voice to a broad swath of people who haven't felt like they've had a voice in decades.
She's probably fucked.
>>29192977
I'm sure there are liberals who will vote trump because of his moderate policies and dont want anything to do with hillary, but wont admit it because they fell how you feel.
>>29192450
Come on that's a little funny.
>>29192483
No one I know supports Trump and I live in the south.
Anecdotes are no good.
>>29193110
>you don't live in a democracy, your vote doesn't matter
yeah yeah. come to russia
>>29192118
theres literally no way trump loses
I live in Australia and we get some trickled down information on the political state of America, but can anyone tell me anything about Bernie? He might be a bit of an old crone but his ideologies and views seem to be pretty much bang on in my books. Does he stand any real chance of winning? Or does he not really have the support in comparison to reptillary or Drumpf. Because from most of the people I've conversed with over the subject down here, they're all feeling the bern.
>>29194288
Well he's pretty much out now, but he did surprisingly well for himself.
He's not actually very far left but by American standards he might as well be the second coming of Lenin and Marx rolled up into one.
>>29192638
Infinite economic expansion is impossible you retarded capitalist.
>trump is a meanie >:(
>he's so unprofessional!!!
Who gives a fuck. Vote based on policies, not persona.
>>29194580
>Vote
No.
>>29192450
I have no idea how anyone could support either of those two. They're both the worst type of baby boomer.
>>29192118
A lot of people greally underestimate Trump because the media does nothing but slam him all day, every day.
But the Democrats are going to be blind-slided, just like the establishment Republicans were. Trump took down Jeb like he was nothing.
I guarantee you, after the first debate, Hillary will just look stupid and clueless standing next to Trump.
If you have any doubt, watch this, and you'll realize that Trump will win in a LANDSLIDE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NxKENplG4
It's a testament to the failures of liberal democracy that the only two options for head of state are both despised by a majority of Americans.
>>29194288
Currently he's behind by a few hundred on pledged delegates for the Democratic convention, but neither candidate is going to have enough to clinch it by the convention (no matter what you hear on TV).
However, the Democratic party instituted a special system after McGovern's run in the 70s that is coming into play. So how it generally works is that there are primaries in various states and votes for a candidate allocate pledged delegates who are bound by law to vote for whoever the people told them to vote for, hence "pledged;" so if there's 6 delegates for a state and Bernie/Hillary split the popular vote, each gets three delegates. And of course you have to have the majority of delegates to win the nomination.
But the system the party put in place was to create a reserved group of "superdelegates" who are not tied to any state and are not forced to vote in any particular way at the convention. There's roughly 600 of these people, about 15% of the total delegate count, and they're all party insiders of one stripe or another; Bill Clinton is a superdelegate, for instance.
The idea is that if there's a close race, the party insiders in their infinite wisdom will be able to select the stronger candidate for the general election. Most of the time they just vote for whoever has more pledged delegates, but they're not forced to vote that way.
So here's where we're at now; barring extraordinary circumstances, Hillary is the nominee. She's the establishment candidate because she's a Clinton and she takes corporate money, so all the other compromised party people will of course vote for her if able, meaning Bernie will be unable to overcome the deficit in pledged delegates.
The thing is, there are extraordinary circumstances. (cont)
>>29192565
Putin has already been elected twice, and in Russia you can't do even that - he was an exception.
Probably, the next president of Russia will be Dmitry Medvedev.
>>29194288
>>29194866
Hillary is currently being investigated by the FBI, the federal (national) law enforcement branch, for criminal wrongdoing in regards to moving top secret government information from secure government servers to a private email server in her home during her run as the Secretary of State, the head diplomat of the US. Basically, she used a private server to hold her official email account's files instead of a government server, and she did a lot of official government business through that email account. This is illegal in a few ways; you're not allowed to take secure information and keep it personally, for fear of espionage. She also deleted 20,000 emails before she handed over that server to investigators, meaning that she deleted what potentially could've been evidence of wrongdoing; that's interfering with justice. That also breaks the Freedom of Information Act, which is supposed to allow the people access to official government documents where warranted; we obviously can't access documents that have been destroyed.
There's also the possible implication that she was involved in quid pro quo bribery as Secretary of State. She signed off on a number of arms deals for foreign nations after they donated to the Clinton Foundation, one of her fundraising organizations. There's nothing wrong with that out and out, even if suspicious, but if her emails had contained indications that she made the deal "you donate, then I'll sign off on the arms deal," that would be criminal as well. And if her server got hacked (which would've been easy since it was unencrypted for three months), she could've given foreign powers top secret information or even be vulnerable to blackmail.
So where we're at now is tenuous. If Clinton makes it through the convention, she's the nominee. If Clinton becomes a criminal before the convention, Bernie will seize the nomination because there will be no one else left. There's hope yet, ausfriend.
>>29192118
We've gotten to the point where enforcing laws is considered racist and wrong. We need Trump or America will decline.
Democrats are voting based on racism and promoting racism agains whites. All liberals and democrats should back up, look at the arguments critically, and realize that "equality" can never happen because what your idea of what's equal and what my idea of what's equal are two different things. Things will never be "equal" enough. The true goal should be equality under the law, not equality of outcome. People that scream racism are the racists themselves because they demonize all whites based on their color of their skin, not because of anything else. Just like the "patriarchy," all men are inherently wrong because of their gender. Don't fall for the race baiting and the gender baiting, it's pushed by people that profit from societal division. These people seek to control society by creating divisions for which they can come in and fix.
This is the most consequential election in US history. Vote for making America great again, not for making yourself great.
>>29194360
I never implied it was infinite, but surely it makes sense to see how far it can go.
>>29193966
Seeing as how Trump vowed to repeal every executive action from Obama, lower corporate and high income taxes, and appoint a staunchly conservative justice, a liberal would be even more of an idiot to vote for him over Clinton.
Even Clinton is obligated by her party to appoint a liberal or even moderate judge. With a republican congress, Trump can go as far right as right goes.
If Hillary gets the presidency it really is time to kill myself
>>29194764
>Master wizard
>Not going for Grand Wizard while he's at it
lost opportunity tbqh
>>29194930
why wasn't she arrested right away for deleting the emails on that server that the law enforcement asked for?
also are the majority of Americans aware of the stuff she did as first lady or Libya incident ?
>>29192338
I hope you hang for your crimes against your own people, degenerate.
ALL non-female Hillary voters MUST hang
>>29195140
Because she's Hillary Clinton and is from a family of power. The FBI doesn't need a single bit of proof about anything at all to arrest her and put her in jail. She signed an agreement when she became Secretary of State that she would protect state secrets. Her using her own server violated that oath, which is a federal crime. She could do that knowingly or unknowingly, and even if no one hacked her or if nothing was stolen, she is still liable for them being in an insecure place. This is an open and shut case. The only reason that she isn't being arrested is because she is the wife of a former president, the nominee of the party, and a democrat in a society that forgive all crimes done by democrats.
I thought Trump was actually going strong in the election. What's going on?
>>29195140
First question; because she's Hillary Clinton. I think the investigators want to have a rock-solid case before they indict the second-most powerful person in the Democratic party. I sure would, knowing that it's my entire career on the line. It also seems like there's a lot of stones to turn in this case.
As for the second, not really. The funny thing about the Clintons is that they've been in so many scandals over their lives that the majority of people tune the scandals out now, especially after Monica Lewinski; Clinton spins the email thing as "just another right-wing conspiracy" and people seem to buy it. People do seem generally aware that she's a liar, but they don't know to what extent it goes beyond what we see in most of our politicians.
>>29192632
Holy fuck anon, i remember seeing that picture in a thread and people started claiming it was them (even posted a timestamp, never saved it)
>>29192450
It's time for a leader who will out the fear of God (and His chosen country) back into all the 3rd world shit holes who think that their failures are because they can't extract more sympathy money from the US.
Fuck decorum.
>>29192118
>>29192338
>>29192450
>>29192547
>>29192602
Gary Johnson is real. If he gets elected, the two-party system will be blown apart.
>>29195247
People are being misinformed about Trump again. Trump said that a Mexican judge was being unfair to him because the judge is Mexican, which is 100% a fact. That isn't racism, Mexican isn't a race. The judge is a member of an organization dedicated to benefitting all Hispanics, legal an illegal, in America and was party of a committee that awarded scholarships to Hispanics, one of which stated openly he was illegal but was awarded the scholarship anyway. The judge also chose a pro-Hillary Clinton law firm to represent the plantiffs in the case against Trump and has made several rulings against Trump that were unfair.
He released previously sealed documents of the case for a few days, which were not redacted, were allowed to circulate for days with the unreadacted info of all the people involved with the case such as witnesses and people suing, and then the judge sealed them back up after 4 days of being unsealed because they were not redacted. This was obviously a ploy to get the info of the people involved in the case out so the media could reach out to them and interview them. The judge also let the main plantiff of the case get herself off the case but still allow the case to come to trial.
Remember, a judge is supposed to recuse himself at the mere hint of being bias and this judge has all these questionable things about him and these really biased rulings.
Trump is 100% correct and is being painted racist by the mob media 100% bought an paid for by the left. Even establishment republicans call him racist.
>>29194939
You didn't give a shit about spics even 4 years ago. This is race war /pol/ shit and you know it.
>>29195422
He cannot realistically get elected. He would need to draw at least half of the democratic and republican voters away from the party, and get at least half of independents.
Without that, he doesn't get a majority and per the constitution the election goes to the state representatives to decide.
>>29195444
Actually, I gave a shit about the demographics of America before /pol/ was /new/ but go ahead and react emotionally instead of thinking critically.
Hillary literally wants to dissolve the border. If she wins America is finished as a sovereign nation.
>>29195474
That's not how that works. Not at all. Holy shit that hurt to read.
>>29195484
Enjoy your $0.02 per post, friendo. Hope it's worth the carpal tunnel.
>>29195512
The sea hag is favorite with the bookies at the moment. But things could change. It's a long way till November.
>>29195512
>Paid for by the Donald J Trump and Make America Great Again PAC (tm)
>>29195512
Did you see the telemundo debate? Clinton and Bernie were literally fighting over oh would give the most benefits to illegals and who would be the most pro-open borders. That should disqualify them as president alone.
>>29195542
>shills calling people posting facts shills
Holy kek
>>29195474
I think what any third party is thinking about right now is the next election, not this one. This is a big chance to steal a significant percentage of people away from the main parties and mobilize them over the next two/four years to get more clout for their own politics. An election has never been more lesser of two evils, and so now is the time to strike for third parties.
>>29195578
He is right you know, you stupid nigger
>>29195431
Simply because the judge supports the hispanic community doesn't mean that he is biased against trump. Just because someone is against affirmative action doesn't mean that a judge who supports BLM should recuse himself. He may very well think affirmative action is wrong just like the judge may see enforcement of legal immigration as good. The judge has not done anything against Trump and thus has no reason to recuse himself. You simply are assuming that because he is hispanic and supports other hispanics that he is against the wall.
Trump himself made the statement that Hispanics love him, so what is the problem?
>>29195607
I don't need to read the rest of your post. The judge is a member of an organization that supports illegal Hispanic immigrants and has appointed a law firm that has paid Hillary Clinton to give speeches. That is at the very least the appearance of impropriety, which is the standard for self-recusal as set out by the laws judges have to follow.
>>29195524
>The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, **if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.** But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote
>>29195673
Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000
>>29195693
But he didn't win 270 electoral votes (majority), which is what the constitution references.
>>29195607
The judge is literally a member of an anti-Trump organization.
It'd be like a member of the KKK hearing a black man's case.
>>29195656
This case went to trial in 2014. Trump's own lawyer said the judge was fair. If Trump believed he was being treated unfairly he would have filed for recusal
>>29195474
If we are a 3 party system, he needs the greater third of all categories, not half.
I'm for whoever legalizes medical marijuana. My mom's in a lot of pain and I hate to see her so unhappy.
Anyway, Trump's a showman selling himself to whoever'll buy it and we probably only know about half of what he really thinks. If not for her husband's name, I guarantee you Hilary would be running as a Republican.
>>29195673
From the electoral college you idiot. Not from the general population.
>>29195736
Don't even bother arguing with him. He probably is the same person that would think an all-white jury would be biased against a black man.
Just so you know, Obama's favorite appointee to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor, has said that the race of a judge and a jury can be reason enough to assume them to be biased. I hope you don't mean to argue against the great liberal intellectual Hispanic female juggernaut that Obama is proud to have appointed. And just so you know, Obama has said he's sorry for appointing "a white guy" that his new appointment, judge Garland, but that his record should be proof enough that he's a good judge even though he is white.
Follow the precedent Obama and Sotomayor have set, people can be biased based on their race and ethnicity.
>>29195757
I hope you mean to prove my point because if Trump didn't have a problem with the judge before he made his rulings, then that means Trump was perfectly happy with having a Mexican judge his case, which shows that he wasn't racist.
>>29195816
Does it matter? He still needs to draw that many from each party to win the popular vote, which almost always, indicates the winner of the electoral votes. Please explain how he can possibly win the electoral vote without taking at least half of the independents and Dem/Rep (depending on state) to win said state.
As long as we're being realistic here and you don't assume that he wins more than 50-60% of any registered voter demographic.
>>29192118
>I guess having a female president won't be bad
Nice bait, shill. No one is bothered by her being a woman, they're bothered by her being a lying criminal.
Bumping for Trump exposure.
>>29194044
Bullshit. South is red capital. Everyone who isn't a nig is voting trump. You must be a nigger and have only nigger friends.
Is there only me supported Bernie but will prefer Trump over Hillary?
>>29192118
<<<<<<<<
>Hilary's support is just astronomical compared to Trump
KILL YOUR FUCKING SELF, OP
>>29197011
If you supported Bernie for his ideals and not the idea of him then supporting trump makes no sense.
They both fucking suck, but at the very least Clinton won't say some stupid shit that gets a thousand starving sand niggers to hurl a nuke at us.
>>29192338
You'd rather be lead by an evil old cronie hag who's done nothing but unethically sell her political power for hundreds of millions of dollars to our Arab enemies
Rather than a brilliant business tycoon who literally builds empires
You are a faggot
>>29197142
I'm comparing shit to super shit.
>>29197081
Shift the Bernbots to Hillary and add repubs who are against Trump, she wins
>>29197195
bernbots hate hillary and trump, so i wouldn't add all of them.
>>29192450
pits defora
PRESIDENT CLINTON HILLARY
CLINTON HILLARY PRESIDENT
HILLARY PRESIDENT
CLINTON HILLARY
>>29192338
You are basically voting in Angela Merkel. Think about that.
HILLARY PRESIDENT CLINT0N
>I live in a country so damn far to the right that a neoliberal imperialist capitalist puppet like Hillary Clinton is considered leftist
Lenin give me strength.
>>29192118
My physics teacher from high school looks like a combination of Trump and Hilary, with Trump's hair.
ITS REALLY WEIRD.
HILLARY PRESIDENT HILLARY
>>29197810
ARE YOU RUSKI?
PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT CLINTON HILLARY CLINTON
>>29197919
Shilling this hard, what a waste
PRESIDENT HILLARY PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON
>>29195909
I'm bothered by her being a women actually, the United States has never had a female president and I just think keeping it that way is better.
You're more of the shill if you think a female president is politically correct, you fucking SJW faggot.
>>29197081
How old is this poll? If it's recent then it makes me feel better, but it seems like old data that was gathered a month or two ago.
>>29197081
> a board on 4chan represents the entirety of america
My impression of you "Hurr! Dur durr ! HURR DURR DURURR URR"
>>29197163
>trump
>brilliant
PICK ONE.
>>29198181
its also a strawpoll screencap.
wow, it's FUCKING NOTHING
I've been #mentallyhill from the beginning!
4chan is not capable of talking about the policies. They're both terrible people. Get over it. Trump's policies are often ridiculous or regressive.
-useless expensive wall
-dumb shit about deporting all illegals
-stopping muslims until some vague "figure out what is going on" shit happens
-deploying troops into syria
-promoting coal again, cancelling the paris accords, and being an outright climate denier
-promoting a climate of hostility and divisiveness among fellow Americans (ya i know bernie bots are worse)
-shits on common core while having no plan of his own
This dude seems unelectable. I sort of like his tax plan though. I'll never know if he is serious about it because he talks about it being up for "negotiation" and he has no political experience to back this - or any of his principles- up.
>>29198325
>>29198325
>ridiculous or regressive
What is regressive about following the laws that are written?
>useless expensive wall
It's not expensive not useless. $10 billion is not much compared to what we spend taking in all these illegals and walls work keeping illegals out. Take Israel as an example for how walls work.
>deporting all illegals
Illegals should be deported. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with rule of law.
>stopping Muslims
Makes perfect sense. The presidents job is to keep America safe from foreign enemies and right now, Muslims are usually our enemies. We should deny them entry until we can verify if they are law abiding and peaceful or terrorists.
>deploying troops into Syria
Why not? Don't you want to help those poor refugees?
>Muh climate change
That's not the job of the president, it's the job of congress and the states. Go cry to your elected officials.
>promoting hostility and divisiveness
Nothing hostile or divisive about Trump. Democrats are the one promoting racial and gender rhetoric to put races against each other and men against women. I don't know when it was acceptable to openly state you're against white men as want less men in positions of power. That's openly racist and sexist.
>common core
Fucking bitch ass faggot, educate yourself. There is not supposed to be a "plan," the local communities and states control their own schools and curriculum, not the federal government. Seriously, common core was funded and pushed by Bill Gates. He spent billions of dollars of his own money to get it through and the entire point of common core is to push ideology, not to raise educational standards. Literally research this yourself.
He's perfectly electable, more so than Hillary. Hillary has way more damaging negatives.
>>29198473
Surely you're not retarded enough to not realise that terrorists make up an almost insignificant amount of muslims
>>29198550
And surely you're not retarded enough that you think that figuring out which ones are terrorists or not is a bad idea. Why would you risk the lives of the people over that? I think it's very fair holding off on immigration so that we can properly screen for terrorists.
If you have a batch of apples and you know that one or two of those apples are deadly poisonous, can you sell the whole batch in good conscious? No, you hold the apples and try to pick the poisonous ones out before bringing them to market. Why is this a controversial idea? Why do people have the idea that everyone should be allowed in at all times? Why should non-Americans be treated like an American and even better than an American? Just look at the European disaster. Learn from their mistakes and suffering. Every single rape, murder, and mugging is the fault of the politicians.
>>29198197
>implying any poll ever created was indicative of anything
Shiggy
>>29197810
>I live in a country so far to the left that a liberal capitalist like Trump is considered far-right
Mussolini give me strength...
>>29198665
All I see here is you justifying your racist bigotry on Muslims.
>Hillary Clinton, on live television, said that amendments are supposed to be regulated
If this doesn't scare the ever living shit out of you, then you have no right to complain about any government that oppresses you. A right is not to be regulated, it is a right. There was no intent for it to be regulated. Completely unbelievable that she is being seriously considered for president after statements like that, let alone her past.
>amendments are to be regulated
>by who?
>2nd amendment should be regulated
>first amendment should be regulated
And soon they'll regulate every single one of them. You don't want the federal government regulating any of the amendments. 4chan would be shut down for starters.
I want all thise reddit posters to go away and die of aids or cancer. Hilary supporters are scum.
>>29198995
Are you retarded? The second amendment literally calls for regulation in it.
Also you are confusing amendments with rights.
>>29199080
I really wish these 4chan autist posters would get off this board and site.
>electing a roastie as president
I would LITERALLY rather any ANY other candidate be elected. Even an insane third party guy would be far better.
>>29199131
Fuck your mother. I curse you cuck promoting globalist chad worshiping fucking little fagmeister
>>29199130
Learn to read English. It says that a "well regulated militia" is needed and that people shall bear arms with no barriers. Even if we accept that as true, how can any other amendment be regulated? Clinton is the one that mixed up rights and amendments.
>>29199155
>hurr if you don't like trump you must be for hillary!
>>29192338
There's nothing more beta than a man voting Democrat. At least the Trump betas know they aren't as bad as the lefties.
>>29199149
It's either a roastie or a Chad, which do you want?
>>29199179
>Trying to be a pseudo intellect by mot picking a side
I don't live in America but even I know that at Least Trump will be better off than Merkel 2.0
>>29198665
Apples are not the same as people you fucking autists. Jesus amerifats are retarded, I hope Trump wins and runs your country into the fucking ground.
>>29199194
At least Chad cares about white males.
>>29199173
You're the one fear mongering over regulation. We regulate amendments every day.
Does anyone own slaves? No? Then that's good regulation. We treat them like any other law to be enforced, through law enforcement.
Or are you one of those people who get riled up when you hear a dirty liberal word.
>socialized
>minimum wage
>homosexuality
Are you angry yet?
>>29199218
Careful, he could do it with your country too. Do you really want that?
>>29199218
Just replace apples with people, you fucking autist.
>>29192577
What's the point in having cheap goods if the only jobs available to you are $7 an hour wagecuck positions because you've now been forced to compete with Pajeet who would gladly live in a mud hut for $3 a day and shit in the streets?
>>29199233
This desu.
Trump is the only one that will at least protect whites. Women don't care about nationality or protection of the people. They put feelings first and logic after. Look at Merkel for instance. She is the worst thing to ever lead Germany.
>>29199194
Chads can be total bros sometimes.
>>29199255
I don't even know what your retarded point is because owning slaves is not a right or an amendment. The rest of your post is a shitty ad hom.
>>29199287
I'm saying that apples as fucking inanimate objects are not comparable to human beings and the two be treated alike
You stupid of something?
>>29199329
The banning of slaves is the thirteenth amendment you twat. Regulated by the government arresting people who own people.
That is an example of an amendment being regulated. How are you this dumb?
> this is the average American voter
>>29199329
>ad hominem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
>>29198473
>stopping Muslims
>Makes perfect sense. The presidents job is to keep America safe from foreign enemies and right now, Muslims are usually our enemies. We should deny them entry until we can verify if they are law abiding and peaceful or terrorists.
It is quite literally unconstitutional. 14th amendment's a bitch, isn't it? Attempting to do that would literally be an impeachable offense.
>>29199413
Yeah fuck off will you. You seem like a real boring cunt yeah?
>>29199382
You still are missing the point. She didn't use regulation in the context of protecting it, she use regulation I the context of restraining freedom, like banning hate speech, banning guns, and the like. Go watch the interview with George Stepanopoulous.
>>29192118
>voting
I'm gonna kill myself
>>29199437
You are a pussy cunt.
>>29199413
Only citizens have rights. Nice try.
>>29199394
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
>>29199464
>Only citizens have rights. Nice try.
Wrong. The constitution, first and foremost, is a series of guiding principles for government action (or inaction) This applies to actions taken towards citizens, noncitizen residents, and complete aliens alike.
If you think the fact that it's merely because these are non-citizens who are being openly discriminated against on both counts of national origin and religion, you are either incredibly ignorant or incredibly stupid. It isn't.
>>29199413
The Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens, not foreign invaders. Sorry, camelfucker. Go blow yourself up in Sweden or Germany, I hear they let you in with no documentation and let you do whatever you want.
>>29199511
>Wrong. The constitution, first and foremost, is a series of guiding principles for government action (or inaction) This applies to actions taken towards citizens, noncitizen residents, and complete aliens alike.
[citation needed]
Your personal opinion on what the Constitution is does not matter. Just like your personal interpretation of the right to bear arms. "until automatic weapons are developed" is not a part of that amendment, no matter how much you faggots would love for it to be.
>>29199511
Your feelings aren't facts friend.
>>29199523
So, according to you, if a supreme court justice signed a treaty with a foreign nation, there's no constitutional problem? After all, foreign nations aren't citizens, they have no rights?
God damn, I had forgotten how absolutely retarded this board gets.
>>29199511
>discriminated against
Statistics don't lie. Numbers don't pick sides.
>>29199434
So long as people can purchase weapons legally, what is the issue? The constitution does not specify the right to bear whatever arms you want, so legally so long as you can buy a gun there is no infringement.
Hate speech is already not rerecognized as free speech by the courts, conservative and liberal alike.
You also missed my point: That your ridiculous notion that amendments shouldn't be regulated is unfounded.
>>29199523
Not true.
The whole reason why people don't want to bring Guantanamo detainees to the US is because they would then be required to stand trial per the constitution.
>>29199581
I didn't know regulation meant enforcement. I guess that's another libspeak trick.
What does arms mean? It means weapons. Therefore Americans should be free to bear any weapon ever invented.
>>29199560
>So, according to you, if a supreme court justice signed a treaty with a foreign nation, there's no constitutional problem? After all, foreign nations aren't citizens, they have no rights?
What are the contents of said treaty? What constitutional problem are you referring to? Give me some substance, don't spew stupidity.
>God damn, I had forgotten how absolutely retarded this board gets.
That's because whenever you're here to post, the retard level gets kicked up a couple notches.
>>29199611
>due process is the same as citizen rights
Off you go cuckie
>>29192338
>He will literally make the U.S. hated to a degree higher than what is now.
Why do you insecure manchildren give a shit about this kind of thing?
1) Nobody actually gives a fucking shit. If you visited even a single foreign country even 1 time you'd realize that nobody fucking cares. This is something you've made up in your mind because you are a fucking ignorant piece of shit whose only context for moral judgement is what you're worried that fictional people think about you.
2) Hillary wants to start WW3 and continue funding ISIS. Trump wants to befriend Russia and pursue non-interventionism. If ANYONE is going to fuck our country up, it's the shithead with the vagina.
>>29199569
No stats don't lie. The people who cherry pick them to prove their points do though, which is essentially everybody.
>>29199647
Both are in the constitution which you state only applies to citizens.
>>29199668
Implying stronk Russia would befriend Trump's America, Putin may like Trump as a person but that doesn't mean that they'll suddenly cosy up the US
>>29199676
>people that use factual data to prove their arguments offend me and are stupid
Okay, off you go cuckie
The only reason i'm voting Trump is cause he's the real life Funny Valentine
>>29199581
Not him, but still going to adress your retarded points
>The constitution does not specify the right to bear whatever arms you want
>"well regulated militia"
>Hate speech is already not rerecognized as free speech by the courts, conservative and liberal alike.
That's besides the point. Did you know that people in the UK get arrested over tweets or comments on the bus? Hillary would like to implement that in the US. This kind of shit is dangerous, fucked up and unconstitutional
>>29199707
No I'm just saying people can find stats to prove essentially any point.
>>29199668
>the world hates us when we aren't leftist cuckholds
Oh man what a compelling argument, I'm a #Hillshill now
>>29199549
>>29199556
https://ricochet.com/archives/constitutional-rights-for-non-citizens/
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html
http://classroom.synonym.com/constitution-protect-foreigners-21785.html
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/today%E2%80%99s-question-non-citizens%E2%80%99-rights
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf
You are fucking retarded.
>>29199569
Constitutional law is clear. You cannot decide that we're not taking immigrants from a particular country or particular religion.A president swears to uphold the constitution. Violating that oath is an impeachable offense. QED, Trump attempting to implement his policies would constitute an impeachable offense.
>>29199628
>What are the contents of said treaty?
Don't matter.
> What constitutional problem are you referring to?
You do know what separation of powers is, don't you? Supreme Court Justices don't get to sign treaties with foreign governments.
>>29199683
Okay, go ahead and prove that non-US citizens have the same rights as citizens. I'll wait right here.
i was saying this back in october but everyone was telling me bernie was going to win LMFAO
shes the chosen one
trump blew his load and ran too early, maybe he could try again next year but he won't have nearly the momentum he has now
>>29199734
What are you trying to imply with the second amendment? A well regulated militia could be one in which certain weapons are not allowed. The constitution does not require access to all arms, simply the ability to bear. The ambiguity of it allows for banning of certain weapons but not all.
>>29199746
The devil is in the details. If your "stats" are not grounded in real science or have no peer-reviewed credibility, ie. many of the shitty infographics spammed here, your argument falls apart.
This is part of the reason why this current culture is fucked - for example, anyone can make a quote and put it over a picture of a political figure, and all the retards on twitter and facebook will share it and everyone eventually believes that person said it. No one fact checks anymore.
It's exactly the reason this culture of "muh feels" has permeated this society, it's the reason liberal feel-good politics with no substance have become so pervasive.
>>29199804
They don't. I didn't argue that they did, just that they had some rights, such as the right to a fair trial.
>>29199781
>Constitutional law is clear. You cannot decide that we're not taking immigrants from a particular country
Sad that you're so uneducated on your own country's history. You're talking out of your ass.
>>29199781
Nice sources.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Can+the+president+legally+ban+muslims
Pick any one that you like.
What the fuck am I the only one who thinks women shouldn't be in politic charges?
>>29199822
>next year
>>29199830
> A well regulated militia could be one in which certain weapons are not allowed
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
People often forget about the word "keep". The banning of weapons that are labelled "military weapons" is an infringement of this amendment, which is why certain *features* have been banned off of weapons, but usually not the weapons themselves.
>>29199925
No, I think women shouldn't lead countries, but you're going to need a better argument against her than just her gender in today's feminist liberal shithole.
>>29199863
>>29199863
Yeah, the Supreme court would have no idea what it's talking about when saying that inmates in Guantanimo bay still have certain constitutional rights, among which are the 14th amendment protections.
Check out that last link. I realize it uses big words which might be hard for your tiny brains, but it really is the scotus opinion on whether or not foreigners can have U.S. conlaw apply to them, and they come up with the answer of yes.
Retards
>>29199925
Even back in Ancient Greece, people knew that women naturally endorse socialism because of their generally more sensitive nature. But these days, saying something like that will get you called a bigot.
>>29199840
Well yeah duh no shit, but you're blind if you don't think conservatives do exactly the same thing.
"Them damn illegals took our jobs" and "all muslims is terrorists" "you can't take away mah guns iss my 2nd amendement right" is just a few example of 'muh feels' conservatives sperging out
>>29199994
Changing the subject to make it fit your position doesn't work with most people, you know that right?
>You cannot decide that we're not taking immigrants from a particular country
is what you said, and what I was quoting, nothing about inmates.
Don't call people retards if you can't even keep up in a discussion
>>29199781
Bruh, did you just google "illegal alien rights" and spam the links you saw here? Did you even read them? I read three of your shaky sources, all of them are basically concluding that the subject of non-citizens on U.S. soil retaining the same rights as sovereign citizens goes both ways and is open to interpretation by the Supreme Court on a case-by-case basis, differentiating "person" from "citizen" as per each amendment.
They are also in agreement that all non-U.S. citizens outside of the territory of the United States of America are granted no rights as afforded to those within its borders.
This is in accordance to the policies presidential nominee Donald Trump intends to implement, wherein he intends to bar immigration by Muslims residing outside of the United States of America's borders until they have been fully detailed and found to have no links to terrorist organizations. He has never once stated his intention to implement any policy that would discriminate against Muslims who are currently residing within the United States whether they be on a visiting Visa or retain full U.S. citizenship.
tl;dr = you have no idea what the fuck you're doing, spamming links at me and shitting out "YOU'RE RETARDED YOU'RE RETARDED HURR" does nothing to further your argument. It's rather clear you're out of your league, go to a Bernie rally or start a cuckold thread to get your mind off it, retard.
>>29199947
*next term
u know what i meant bastard
>>29192889
It's not a question of if, its a question of when. War is human nature.
>>29199994
Not the people you're arguing with, but it really irks me when people imply the Supreme Court is infallible. Was Citizens United a good case? What the Supreme Court really is is basically an ideological cesspit. None if the justices are objective and they usually rule on a case similar to their party line almost 90% of the time. That is unacceptable. It's a pure numbers game based on who's on the court at the time.
Trump will end my neetbux. Fuck him.
>>29200009
>still thinking the conservatives are the racist ones
>not knowing that democrats are wolves in sheep's clothing when it comes to race
>>29199947
That does not specify the right to any firearm. So long as you have the right to have some kind of firearm, the second amendment has not been infringed.
The can restrict caliber, require single shot, or whatever other crazy restrictions and it would not legally infringe on your right.
>>29200007
Hilary Clinton supported the war in Iraq, started the Obama conspiracy theories, and advocated for mass incarceration. Anyone who calls her a liberal/socialist is too stupid to understand politics
>>29199964
Yeah. It's really sad
>>29200007
>women naturally endorse socialism because of their generally more sensitive nature
That's kind of true, but put an authoritarian national-socialist woman as president and see what would happen
>>29200089
yeah I did kek, just fucking with ya
>>29192338
>giving a shit about what countries with kings, queens, and dictators think
ok
>>29200009
Fair enough, but the hardcore left's voice is so much louder than the hardcore right's right now, it isn't important to fight them at the moment. It's more important to battle back against the leftists who are trying to attack and censor anyone who disagrees with their batshit policies and rhetoric.
>>29200067
BTFO
T
F
Ooregano commentato
>>29200095
>citizens untied was a bad case
Found the libshit cuck
>>29200197
I thought the hardcore right were having a bumper year, Trump panders to them at essentially any opportunity?
All the extreme left stuff I see is college safe spaces and the like which while infuriating don't really have an impact on the larger political discourse
>>29200267
Confirmed for not having seen any democrat debate or politically rally.
>>29199719
>instead of building a literal wall
D4SHIIIIIIII
>>29200112
When they said "well-regulated" they meant one that is functional and well equipped. A militia armed with single shot .22 rifles is not functional or well equipped.
But keep trying to twist the 2nd amendment into your own perspective. It still hasn't occurred to you that limiting the rights to own certain types of firearms defeats the purpose of the second amendment. You only want it gone, but you know it's there to stay so you try to nullify it on the grounds of ambiguity. That shit will not work for at least several decades, if at all, so don't even try.
>>29200291
I could totally see it. Wonder if his aproval ratings will be as high though
>>29200289
Dont they kind of run like this:
>Bernie
>College will be free
>Wall street is corrupt
>Government is corrupt
>Except me of course
>Crowd goes wild
>Hillary
>I have been politicking for super long
>Trump is dangerous
>Crowd goes wild
What kind of extreme leftism are you referring to?
>>29200128
Who cares what she believes in? Do you think she'll do a 180 and lose all her voters when she's elected? Doesn't work that way buddy.
>>29200360
They both are on record saying they would never deport someone and would give all immigrants free healthcare and free education, including college. This was during the telemundo debate. Go ahead and tell me that isn't far left.
>>29200267
You think Cletus with his bumper stickers are having an effect on the current political discourse?
Colleges are where young people are supposed to expand their minds and learn their trades. At the moment it is completely overtaken by leftists' political poison and nation-ruining rhetoric, and they censor any opposing ideas that could possibly offend someone. That is entirely against the statutes this country was founded upon.
Trump would NEVER have gotten to this point if this nation wasn't full of people angered by the hardcore left's occupation of our learning facilities, politics and public discourse. Think about Trump running a decade ago. Never would have gained steam. He is simply a manifestation of the pent-up frustration of anyone in the range of mildly leftist, centrist, or all the way to the right. There was a similar frustration at the end of Bush's term, when Obama's "change" campaign spoke to young minds tired of hardcore conservatism due to having a cowboy president for 8 years.
>>29200329
>When they said "well-regulated" they meant one that is functional and well equipped.
No one but the founding fathers were in the room when this was drafted. How can you presume to know exactly what they meant 200 years ago? The rest of your post is irrelevant since it is based on your assumption of signing unknowable.
All we know is what they wrote on that paper. We can do nothing but interpret it literally until we must change it by amendment.
>>29200095
You're right, of course. Supreme Court rulings a century ago are completely different from Supreme Court rulings today. It is entirely subjective. It's also aggravating that 9 people can decide the fate of an entire country.
>>29200466
>how do you know
That's the fucking goddamn beauty of it. You can only go by what is written. You are applying your bias on to it and saying it means more than it does.
>>29192118
Fuck both of them they're both so horribly bad it's not even funny. But as bad as Trump is Hillary is worse.
>>29200466
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
>The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
>>29200467
>120$ for a pair of shoes that take 10$ to fabric is sure expensive for nothing. Enjoy getting scammed.
OH boy, did you just finish your Social Science 101 class and think you're a communist savior of the working class?
The fabric isn't the only thing that needs to be paid for. How about:
>workers' wages
>land permit
>permits for all manner of safety regulations that need to be upheld
>bills for lighting, air conditioning, etc. of the factories
>legal defense budget for handling inevitable mishaps and workers' issues
>design team's wages
>packaging
>transportation
>advertising
and more?
Most businesses make only a very very small percentage of a profit per item sold; the wealth comes from the magnitude of items sold. So their wealth depends entirely on consumer demand, which forms a two-way relationship. That is the magic of capitalism - a business cannot exist without your consent to spend your money on their products.
>>29200507
So how do you add "well equipped" to that without injecting your own bias?
I am reading it literally. It does not state anything other than that you may jeep and bear arms as part of a regulated militia. That regulation could be whatever the government wants it to be, lower caliber, bolt action, etc.
I am arguing for the flexibility of the interpretation, you're the one stating it is your way.
>tfw voting hillary
>>29200614
Don't forget the time and effort in designing the shoe too.
Think about shaving razors. The Gillette ones cost about $15. Why? Because they invested hundreds of millions of dollars in designing the most ideal razor.
>>29200601
"Working order" is still subject to what the government defines it as.
>>29200637
See>>29200601
Not the faggot you are talking to, but let me say I'm pretty neutral on gun control. Don't give a fuck, and let me say you are doing a fucking awful job defending your position.
>>29200637
>whatever the government wants it to be
Literally the opposite.
>>29200637
That's not me you're replying to. I responded to you with a link and a quote.
Your interpretation of "well-regulated" is incorrect.
>>29200675
Yes my friend I put
>design team's wages
in there too, but thank you, always nice to get a helping hand in BTFO'ing these communist shits intent on ruining my nation.
>>29200704
It does not say self regulated, so it is not the opposite.
>>29200703
See above. My point stands that either what regulation is imposed upon the "militia" or what "working order" is defined as is subject to congressional law.
>>29200748
It doesn't say government regulated either. In fact, a militia is not related to the federal government at all.
Your move cuckie.
>>29200692
Care to point out where that was established in the constitution?
The second amendment calls it a right, not a privilege.
>>29200796
Anything not otherwise specified in the constitution is subject to congressional law.
>>29200748
>still misinterpreting "well regulated"
Again, read >>29200601
The second amendment doesn't speak of "regulations".
>>29200748
Your entire arugment basically boils down to "I don't know and thus no one else knows so we should just ban everything because we don't know."
There, that's what your entire argument is. And when someone points out that we do, in fact, have a decent idea what it means based on time appropriate colloquialisms. You just flat ignore it and move the goal posts.
As a casual observer I am far more inclined to agree with the other guy. Who is constantly producing evidence and all you produce is NU UHHHHS.
>>29200816
Because it is entirely subjective. There is no one definition for a militia in working order. Nor is it necessary that one in whatever sense of working order needing access to any gun they want.
>>29200873
I'm not for banning guns actually. I just recognize that the government has the right to restrict access to whatever guns they wish. They simply cannot ban them without an amendment.
>>29200853
If you read my post i address the older meaning as "working order"
>>29200827
Then I guess that means that the second amendment says that the federal government cannot prevent people from owning arms.
>>29200971
Have you not been reading this entire argument?
>>29201021
I did. I just won that argument using your own logic.
GG and definitely no re because it was 2 ez
Vote Trump because he will be 400 times better than Hillary
>>29200914
We don't have access to any gun we want. That's not what the 2ndA is about. For instance, shotguns with bores larger than the 10 Gauge caliber are banned as they are considered destructive devices and impractical, they are not used by military personnel either.
However we do have access to firearms that military personnel use, that law enforcement use. Practical firearms, suitable for a militia or a fighting force
>>29200960
I assume you're trying to bring up the "muskets" argument
muskets were the "assault weapons" of their days. They were used by the military yet citizens still had access to them.
In other words, congressional law does not get to define "working order"
>zero interest in politics
>stupid friends keep memeing about trump and riding the trump hate bandwagon
>keep trying to guilt trip me into voting, saying how people have died for my right, and how people would kill to live in a democracy
>won't fuck off about trump, as if hating him somehow made them better/smarter people
I almost want to vote Hillary because of how pissed I am. Fuck these idiots
>>29200050
>Changing the subject to make it fit your position doesn't work with most people, you know that right?
Previous anons, in posts>>29199549
>>29199523
>>29199464
made the claim that non-citizens do not have constitutional protections. This is, quite simply, wrong, because the constitution acts as a bar on what the U.S. government may or may not do.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf
Clearly establishes otherwise, because inmates at Gitmo are non-U.S. citizens and have recognizeable constitutional rights.
>>29200067
Oh look, da widdle wetawd is wrong again.
The government is not allowed to set up religious classifications for policies that involve "excessive entanglement" with religious issues.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/89
Making a immigration policy based explicitly on religion would definitely fail this test. It has nothing to do with sovereignity or citizenship or borders, it has to do with the valid powers of the U.S. government.
>>29200095
Then you misunderstand the role of the supremre court, and likely common law in general.
They don't offer opinions as to what the law "really means". When you get 5 justices making a decision, that decision BECOMES law. Maybe it's a bad system, but it is the system in place. If SCOTUS says that the formation of conlaw is a restriction on gov't, then it is a restriction on gov't.
>>29201105
Please tell me when you have access to a fully automatic m4 carbine or m240.
I'm not for banning any gun. Everyone has been trying to paint me as some liberal straw man but I hope that the government does not restrict gun access.
Where is it defined that we must have the same firearms as the military, though? From what I was able to gather, a militia is meant for unconventional warfare against invaders. They can best do that with military grade weaponry, but my argument is that working order/well regulated/however else it can be translated does not exactly require a certain grade of weapon. A militia can be in working order as long as they can combat enemy forces which can be done with handguns and bolt action rifles.
>>29192118
Hillary "government secrets" Clinton
>>29201366
>b-but these anons said-
You were replying to me, not them.
Again, you literal retard, this is what you said:
>Constitutional law is clear. You cannot decide that we're not taking immigrants from a particular country
That is incorrect. It's happened before and you refuse to acknowledge it.
>>29201454
>That is incorrect. It's happened before and you refuse to acknowledge it.
Yeah, before the adoption of the Civil Rights act and the SCOTUS cases surrounding it that grafted its principles onto the 14th amendment.
Did you know that once upon a time, you could own slaves? That happened before too.
>>29201400
The Constitution was created to protect the liberties of American citizens. Again, liberty, not privilege.
"the security of a free state", from both within and without. The second amendment was created not only to prevent invasions, like it probably did in World War 2, but also to prevent or at least deter government tyranny.
>>29201553
You're still arguing about the rights of US citizens instead of immigration. Have you ever read the 14th?
>>29201667
No, I'm not. Go back up through the thread and read what I've written.
I'm arguing that constitutional provisions concerning invidious discrimination attach to the government and its actions, not to the people acted upon.
>>29201699
You didn't answer the question
Either way, your sources hold no weight with me. I don't give two shits about naturalization and illegal aliens. There is no citizenship to speak of if you live in Syria and you want to move to the States. Admission can be restricted to some degree and immigrants can be deported.
>>29201699
Then the constitution will be updated to better reflect the current circumstances.
Just looking at her makes me sick. Look at those reptilian eyes, her face looks like a poorly fit mask. Her only motivation is her corruption and the fact that "it's her turn, god dammit!"
Trump isn't any better. He talks like a third grader and is only in it to promote his brand. He wants to commit war crimes and now he's selling out to the same establishment bastard that he bashed Jeb for.
