someone who finally gets it, plus kudos to you Endium for not insulting your audience like I've seen so many other artists do over this

20 seconds in, and I thought for sure the punchline was gonna be "and then he realised the camera was on" :P *sigh*Thanks for that. I'm good, but it still helped to see/hear something like that at last.

looool. Sanders would have been interesting--but his appeal was in a very narrow wavelength of people. But the Democrats really screwed up by nominating the person who literally represented 'the establishment everyone hates'. The media created a monster, tried to kill it and only made it worse.

"Fuck off to your safe space" wow haha.

Took the words out of my mouth.

From what ive read, a lot of people arent upset that hillary lost, theyre upset because for some reason, theyve got it in their minds that trump is going to send gays to death camps. like people actually believe that their life is in danger because theyre gay, because whats happened is the left has spewed hateful rhetoric about trump being literally hitler, and all thats done is made people scared to death and fearful for who they are. and its not even trumps fault, its the conglomeration of people who think that using scare tactics is a good idea.

I don't think you understand... it's not trump...it's Mike Pence...trump is so politically limp that we know Pence is going to be pulling the strings the entire campaign

Do you have any evidence what so ever to suggest that being the case? I mean, he's made a massive turn around so far.

His victory speech was -way- different than his rhetoric before.

Ban Muslims thing is gone from his website.

Immigration stop thing is completely changed, the wall is still a part but very minor compared to the emphasis on other parts.

Trump has two years to prove he's indeed the 'president for ALL Americans' that he says he'll be, because otherwise, the people are going to be utterly pissed and the Democrats they then elect for the House and Senate are going to utterly stonewall him in Congress, if not outright impeach.

True. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

shit its 6am in the morning and it hid it instead of editing

"Trump is a showman he's proved that. He's won off spectacle and harsh language. But when it comes to getting things done right he's never had to deal with this sort of stuff before. "


No but you know that Mike Pence is the fucking devil right? once Trump doesn't have to be a talkshow host anymore he'll rely on whatever the people around him say and that's the fucking worst part about all this. Trump also has to fight to get things done no matter what.

All I can see about Pence is that he's done a few really, really shady things... Over a decade and a half ago, for a few of them. Sure, there's little indication he's really changed his ways, but there's also a lack of evidence to show that he's still as much of a bible thumper as he was before.

Being in power mellows people's positions considerably as well, as they realize that their extreme positions are untenable and will not be achieved, period. Combine that with the fact that a lot of the things he could potentially want would face at least partially bipartisan opposition if just to spite him because he's Trump's VP, not because people disagree with him...

And, you know, he's the VICE-president. He basically has no actual power, and there is -no- evidence to say that Trump will let Pence run his mouth and alienate the part of his electorate that is simply heavily disenfranchised and disgruntled left-wingers that simply wanted to go 'FUCK THE ESTABLISHMENT', and thereby make Trump's ability to actually change things impossible.

Pence, to me, SCREAMS 'was selected to secure the religious vote and nothing more'.

plus VP has no power unless the president gets outed.

Cheney would disagree

these are good points but it's worth noting that the vice president serves as the president of the Senate, so it's not like he has no power. thus i think the unease of the LGBTQ+ community is understandable-- maybe not justified, but understandable.

President of the Senate doesn't mean anything more than the guy that bangs his gavel and calls 'order' when the shouting matches get out of hand due to the Rules of the Senate. The Speaker of the House has a shit ton more power than the President of the Senate.

eh, sounds like you know more about that than i do, i'll take your word for it there, but i still think minority and LGBTQ+ groups being upset or uneasy over pence being in the white house at all-- in addition to having republican majorities in all three branches of gov't-- is understandable. i don't think it'll be as bad as they're fearing, though.

Oh, I'm not saying it isn't going to be a bit of a 'what now', but I do think it's way less of a problem than they think.

I'm not a fan of Pence in the slightest, and am a bit worried about him. The thing most people should be worried over though is that Trump is going to get to name a couple Supreme Court justices in his time. Now he's mainly doing this to overrule Roe V Wade. I think that's super shitty, but not exactly worrying to the gay community. This is the part that worries the lgbt community. The majority of the people he's listed for the position are anti lgbt, and will most likely overrule the previous ruling allowing gay marriage on a federal level. This means the power will go back to the states stopping a large percentage of the nation lgbt population from being able to get married.

Also, I'm not too worried about gay people getting sent to any form of encampment, but the current situation does remind me of when we made encampments for the Japanese except in this case it would be for the Muslims. Mostly due to the fact a large percentage of this country doesn't just view the Radicals of that religion as enemies but all of it. Especially in the support base for Trump. I'm not saying it's a likely event, and I think the rest of congress will prevent those kinds of actions. But I wouldn't be suprised if there was an attempt made at it. The really scary thing, is I'm pretty sure that if any major terrorist attacks occur while he's in power, that the chances of that will go from unlikely to pretty damn likely.

How, exactly, would he 'overrule' the previous ruling? That would require the following things to happen:

A: A case, going all the way to the Supreme Court, in which someone wishes to -invalidate- a gay marriage.
B: The Supreme Court even -caring- enough to take the case to begin with.
C: The Supreme Court going against a previous ruling of the Supreme Court, something they basically don't do, ever.


Secondly:

The overwhelming majority of Trump's support base is in fact, not what you think they are. They are a number of different categories. Sure, the regular GOP voters, of course, but also simply disgruntled, lower-class workers that have been betrayed by the Democrat party. Many, including myself, identify as left-wing, but have felt disenfranchised by the Democrats due to them representing the establishment which has worked tiredlessly to keep the lower-classes poor and easy to manipulate, combined with the constant political correctness and deep-seated bigotry called 'Social Justice' that is gaining more and more power in the Democrat party.

Thirdly:

At no point in time was it even remotely implied, let alone suggested, that any form of 'internment camps' for Muslims already within the US would even be thought of. To say anything else is doomsaying at best, actively and maliciously disingenuous at worst. Even so, since his victory in the election, he's seemingly dropped his anti-Muslim stance, as it has disappeared from his website.

This despite country-entry-bans on certain nationalities and groups having happened before and being completely legal, by the way.

Oh, and one last thing: Pence is a cock, yes, but not as evil as you might think he is.

http://www.snopes.com/mike-pence-su.....rsion-therapy/

I hope this helped.

Trump has literally said before he'd have Pence running his domestic and foreign policy before.

domestic and foreign

domestic=home

foreign=away

fuck

Oh, so now Trump is suddenly telling the truth, specifically when he's saying things that justify your being upset with his victory?

I don't think anyone claimed his statements were lies. I mean he has used a lot of lies during his campaign so now I've said it so I guess you can say it now. But no one's said that before now dude. That's a bit of a strawman argument.

Wat? Wat even is this?

Generally when someone says how they intend to run the country if they get elected, I take them at their word unless there's proof otherwise.

They will realize they are wrong in time.

The standard stages of grief fit to Trump greatly.

http://i.imgur.com/XlemdWX.jpg

Some people refuse to see through the propaganda

I love Jonathan Pie! His past videos are just terrific

Good thing I'm living in Germany and not the USA ^^' But I still like to refelct my own thoughts and what I heard in local media.

So... what our media said was that neither of those two were a great choice, and this election was all about litteraly picking "the lesser of two evils". But I myself don't rate it too much. Yes, of course I do have fear from what I heard in media about Trumps personality and such, but I also think nobody should rate him before he was even able to do something. We all have to see what will be coming in the future, who knows, maybe he will do better than everyone thinks.

I'd just like to throw in what I heard one of the local YouTubers saying, because I think it is so true:
The biggest thing we should fear about Trump is not his personality, but the fact that he is no politician, but an "outsider". "Would you let your teeth get medicated by a butcher, would you let a logger repair your car?" He is no skilled expert. And that's the most questionable thing.

That's about the smartest thing I've heard from an outsider since the election happened.

At the very least, Trump will prove that America is tired of career politicians. What else he'll do is yet to come, and all the whining and protesting in the world will get people nowhere.

Oh, why thank you!

Yeah, that's about it. There's not much that we as single individuals can do about it anyway.

It's his vice president you have to worry about locally....That guy......I'll just leave this here

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/07/.....-moments-many/

As to the last paragraph - if the last ten dentists have left your teeth worse off than before; if the last ten mechanics have destroyed your car; why not?
Decades of "skilled expert" politicians of both main teams have given us what we have right now - the crushing debt, the bureaucracy, the corruption, the joblessness, the rapidly retreating liberty. If that's what the "experts" offer, then why not take a chance?

Holy fuck, this man is beautiful.

He's absolutely right. When your entire campaign is based on marginalizing those you feel are "wrong" or "deplorable", what the fuck do you THINK they're going to do when it's time for the polls to open?

Never mind what Clinton and the DNC did to Sanders. The left has taken up the SJW tactic of crybullying, and politics just don't work that way when the real power to make these decisions, ultimately, is in the hands of the people you're accusing of being sexist, racist, Islamophobic, and what have you.

Hillary just made me eye roll so fucking hard when one of the things she campaigned on was ... "Hey guys.. it's the current year.... and I have a vagina!!!"

I'm sorry .. but being a certain gender is not a Presidential Quality.

When I heard her go on about that all it sounded like was that she was trying to bandwagon off the crowd that voted for Obama just because he was Black @_@

Because that's exactly what she fucking did. She thought that, because Obama got celebrity endorsements, they'd work for her, too.

She forgot that Americans have had eight years to get tired of Obama's shit.

and then of course calling Trump supporters "DEPLORABLES" sure as fuck didn't make her come off as any more appealing xD

The left thinks it can guilt and bully people into accepting their way of thinking. That's worked for SJW scum in small cases--feminists causing people to lose their jobs, etc. But not when the power is in the people's hands.

The Hillary Campaign had a label and attack for so many different people:

Bernie supporter and or a man not voting for her? Berniebro: Sexists and misogynists.
Trump supporter? Basket of Deplorables: Every (insert group of people)ic word here.
Millennial? Stupid, lazy, ignorant, uneducated, basement dweller.
Woman not voting for her? You're going to hell.
Minority not voting for her? A stupid traitor voting against your own interests.

Hillary didn't chase after votes, so much as chase them away.

She pushed people away from the very beginning, yes.

The reason people are so overly upset that universities are offering free grades on a test, arts and crafts time with crayons and playdough (yes this is a thing), and their over whining and complaining, and their rioting and destruction of property... is because, to be blunt and not restricting my speech... we've raised a generation of pussies.

Most of the people in the protests and riots don't even look like they are of the age to vote. And the ones who are, are literally people you'd rather not associate with. They've got this idea that Trump is going to just destroy them. We didn't have this shit when Obama got elected, we didn't have this problem when Bush Jr got elected, we didn't have this problem when Bill Clinton got elected, we didn't have this problem with Bush Sr, we didn't have this problem with Reagan. No we didn't have the riots and extreme protests then. People were more mature and raised better, now we have a bunch of pussified wimps screaming cause they didn't get their way for once, no matter that even ignoring the outright criminal acts she's done with her emails (while a 4 star general sits in prison for one single photo taken on a nuclear sub).

Then you have the idiots on Twitter and Tumblr claiming "revolution" or thinly veiled death threats like "#trumpdiesinfierycarcrash2016".

The ones claiming gays are going to be sent to a camp for "reformation" is just absurd. As if Trump would let Pence (the mere VP, not the big P himself) actually do that, on-top of the Senate, Congress, House, etc etc, let alone the individual states....

The left have been raised in a bubble, an echo chamber, of stupidity for so long that they think all races that aren't "white" are going to be killed or exiled or deported. No they aren't. The ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, the ones who VIOLATED OUR LAWS and came across the border ILLEGALLY while we have hundreds of thousands who are trying to get in the Legal way, to gain legal citizienship, who are educating themselves and wanting to become part of our culture and everything we have, they get screwed, they go through an arduous process to try and get in legally....but a bunch of border runners get permitted to stay, with no background checks, no vetting, and get automatic citizenship and able to start taking our jobs for less money than people who've busted their ass to get where they are.

You have minorities claiming it's going to be like slavery. They have no clue what it was like. There are no people alive today who were around in slavery times. Maybe segregation times, but not slavery. They have no idea what it's like, so hearing them rant that they are going to "be in chains again literally" is just absurd.

The left has for so long brainwashed everyone so that any loss is apparently a legitimate reason to break down and cry, tantrum, and riot and destroy things. You have idiots literally thinking they are going to die.

They have people in my state, vandalizing national monuments with "white power" and "black power" and "fuck trump" because they think that an election's result allows them to violate all the laws. The republicans didn't act like this when elections happened. Oh and back to the "slavery" comments? Most of the South in the past was actually Democratic back in those days...think about that. But they don't want you knowing that fact, they conveniently stopped teaching that fact in schools.

Fact is the country isn't going to hell. People voted and Trump won, it's over. Let's see what he does in his first 100 days, his first year, his second year. That will give us a real basis of what he will be like as a president. Also do remember that the democrats FEARED Reagan almost as much as they do Trump, and yet Reagan is now regarded as one of the best presidents of all time, on par with founding fathers and Lincoln. So let's wait and see. If Trump proves to be bad, he can be voted out in 4 years. If he does something criminal he can be impeached. The Republican party are even scratching their heads just like the democrats because they didn't want him, he was too much an outsider to their normal ways of thinking that ended us where we are today (both repubs and democrats are responsible with career politicans). They'll be watching him VERY closely.

Also to see how the left is reacting even a little bit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEwCvHVS394
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM53wj9Drow

There we're other videos I was watching just as I was typing this to show off them, and they've just been made private. But yeah you have women screaming on video about they are going to kill themselves and they need an ambulance, or breaking down in tears "we're going to die. I don't wanna die.". You have openly gay people fearing they are going to be put in a camp like Auschwitz here in America. And that apparently every person who voted Trump is either an "Old White man", "racist", "sexist", "misogynist", yada yada etc etc.

It's ridiculous. He's not even done anything in office to validate anything they are saying. Everyone needs to calm down I fear.

And yes, I voted Trump.

EDIT: holy hell this was longer than I thought, didn't mean to put something this long in your journal.

I agree with you here. I have tried to get specifics from one gay friend about how Pence's alleged electrocution law will be approved or how Trump will actually overturn the High Court judgement but I've not got any actual explanations. It's been as ridiculous over here since Brexit too due to people apparently being convinced that leaving a customs union/wannabe superstate is somehow going to wreck the economy while leading to all EU-based labour laws being ditched immediately.

If you act like a pussy then I doubt you'd be rioting and being violent

everyone is focusing on trump when the real problem is Pence...he's a fucking zealot

when you have 2 persons that is not popular in the election circle, then you know for sure the system is wrong. In my county, we have a multi party system that the party leader represent their party's interest, not the other way around. I respect you voting for Trump because that's your desicion. Let us see where the next 4 years with an idiot in charge will do.

Thanks for sharing this - they're words that need saying and are well-said. Personally I don't feel like it's -all- on the left; I think the right has spent years gleefully cultivating a mistrust of any and all government and 'the establishment' in the minds of a lot of people, so they've been playing a long game that has led to the current political climate. A climate where people are eager to vote for change, no matter what that change is. He's right about the refusal to actually have discussions on both sides of the aisle, and how that's led up to it too. And within the scale of this election itself, he's absolutely correct about what the left has done wrong. The unwillingness to take a risk on a candidate like Sanders, and instead shove him aside in favour of the known quantity that was the Clinton dynasty. And that status quo establishment is exactly what a lot of voters were fed up of, so they voted for the only candidate who talked about change.

Frankly I think Clinton would have made a perfectly reasonable president. Probably not a very exciting one, apart from being the first female in the office and all, and mostly I like to think she would have continued the momentum of a lot of the work Obama's done to try and catch the US up with the rest of the civilised world in terms of providing health care and environmental responsibility and social rights. Under Trump... nobody really has any idea what's going to happen, it feels like, since he's been pretty quiet about any actual defined plans. All we have to go on is his vitriol on the campaign trail, which conflicts itself as often as it agrees, and Mike Pence's actual established history of anti-LGBT works up to and including the atrocity that is 'conversion therapy.' So there are some really chilling possibilities, but equally just a mess of uncertainty. Both in terms of what the Trump presidency will actually aim to do, and how the rest of the Republican party, now fully in control of Congress, will react to whatever he tries to do.


Erm. Tldr; thanks for sharing the video. :}

I understand the general sentiment, but I think what happens with the right is this: They are willing to debate, in fact I'd argue that they are eager to do so; but will not believe anything that contradicts their world-view even if it's in front of their face. The problem with the left is that the willingness to debate is absent, instead they get on a high horse and attempt to shame you into their world view.

That's a really good way to put it, and it feels accurate. I just really hope some progress can be made on both sides in the years to come, but it's hard to see how sometimes.

Glad to hear an opinion that isn't zealous hyperbole "OMG THE WORLD IS FUCKED AND EVERYONE IS AN ASSHOLE".

It was good to hear this.

More people need to see this.

If trump did something smart like put Bernie in his cabinet then he'd have a hell of alot more support. I hate pence....he's actually evil

literally the devil

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/07/.....-moments-many/

Pence is the one to watch for.... I don't expect Trump to do much definitely not half the ridiculous things he said he'll do

Bernie's not a bad guy as a person...but the eventual end point of socialism is playing out, right now, today, in Venezuela. His policies would take us there.

Everyone bitches about socialism but We're already waist deep in socialism. His main selling point was education that doesn't cost 10,000+ dollars for a year. I'll fucking take socialism for that. We have enough dumb fucks running around

That we are already waist deep in socialism is a bug, not a feature.

And his main selling point was the full goose looney socialist agenda, right down the line. "Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more." All that does is make everyone poor.

Okay, let's remove government funding to police, firemen, doctors, because that's socialized. Let's remove medicare, that's socialized. Let's remove Social Security, that's socialized. Etc etc...socialism is not 100% evil people, the second you understand that the better. Socializing education would not be evil...it makes it easier for people to get ahead in life (and it doesn't change that you'd need work experience for a job).

"Muh Roads!"

http://bicatperson.tumblr.com/post/.....larys-policies
http://bicatperson.tumblr.com/post/.....y-accomplished
http://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/h.....ry-gop-smears/

All my opinions on Hillary can be summed up in those three links.

As for Trump,
http://thedailyshow.tumblr.com/post/153011035243

I'll even type it up again here: "You personally may not be a racist, sexist, xenophobe. But that comes with the package. So if you take that deal, what you're telling me is, "Hey, man. I don't hate you. I just don't care about you."

To your last sentence: I voted for Trump not because I support him, but because I honestly believe Clinton would have destroyed our Constitutional system of government and the First and Second Amendments. I care about you. I care about our country, for everyone. The needs of the many, and all that.

"destroyed our Constitutional system of government and the First and Second Amendments."

I'm very tired of the "DEY GUNNA GET OUR GUNZ" statements...there's been 8 obama filled years of people telling us that and it wasn't true. Full auto Assault rifles are already illegal he just wanted people to actually enforce that shit.

as for the first amendment....did you watch the same campaign I did? hillary is in with the news she wouldn't shut it down....Trump has actively rallied against the news. There's a reason why "Journalist, Rope, Tree" exists and it's not Hillary's doing.

Trump is a limp dick now that he doesn't have to show off anymore. Pence is going to run the country into the ground because Trump doesn't know how to run government. Once we get into another inevitable war you'll see Trump doing his dance again to get people angry and outraged.

Clinton's stated litmus tests for Supreme Court appointments were 1) overturning Citizens United - there goes the First Amendment, and 2) overturning DC v. Heller - and there goes the Second.

And no, Obama didn't just want to enforce the existing ban on fully-automatic weapons. He wanted to extend it to semiautomatic weapons. There's a difference, and it matters.

The MSM was actively in the tank for Hillary Clinton. If a Republican had done what she did, they'd have bene howling for blood 24/7. That bias is why nobody trusts the MSM any more, and it's entirely their own fault.

Umm...you know Citizens United allowed funding without people knowing where it came from, right? It basically meant that another country could fund a politician (which is illegal) and not get caught that easily because it is no longer required to state where the money came from. Considering that Trump was in constant talks with Russia and got some of its funding from Russia...yeah, Citizens United needs to be overturned.

Also, that case was only relegated to Washington DC itself...which is where the majority of politicians lie. I do admit it seemed a bit of an archaic law, but that's local, not national, and probably was put there at first to protect our politicians from crazies with guns...though it's a different world now, that law would have needed to be changed with the times.

And yes, the mainstream media...who you only cheer when they go after Clinton and bitch and moan when they went after Trump. Networks have to appear unbiased...and if you hadn't been paying attention, they attacked Clinton more than Trump because she has been in the system for more than 20 years, and he was an outsider, whom they never thought was going to win. And frankly, if the majority of the country had voted, he wouldn't have (49.6% of the country did not vote, meaning he won by the views of 26% of the country voting).

Uhm...actually, no, Citizens United explicitly left in place disclosure requirements and said that they were explicitly permissible. It was just that blanket prohibitions of political speech were not. As for foreign contributions: you mean like the ones that benefited Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?

DC v. Heller was indeed about DC law, but the individual right to keep and bear arms it protected was extended to the states vis the Fourteenth Amendment by MacDonald v. City of Chicago. If Heller goes away, it would render MacDonald moot.

The MSM tried very, very hard to give Clinton a pass on the classified emails. If anyone - ANYONE - else had done what she did, they'd be in jail. Ask David Petraeus or James Cartwright.

A majority of our country never votes for a President. That's the way of our democracy. The right to vote carries with it the right not to vote, and to accept whatever outcome others select.

Okay so I'm gonna admit that I did some shitty research for this and just used wikipedia to confirm I wasn't crazy. That being said it doesn't match what you're saying at all:
"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a U.S. constitutional law and corporate law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citiz....._United_v._FEC

Overruling it literally just keeps corporations a bit more out of politics. This is a rather infamous ruling because it puts corporations on the same ground as actual people, and when it comes to spending, people can't compete with corporations.

Now DC vs. Heller I haven't heard about before today so I did some more shitty research. And you're right for the most part. And I do think it's a count against Clinton, though her reasons, if honest, do seem somewhat convincing. Basically, apparently the way the ruling goes you can't go and pass some safety laws like forcing people to store their weapons safely. This leads to a bunch of accidental deaths, usually by minors in those peoples families. So it wouldn't ban guns, it would give the power back to the states on deciding how they're treated so laws like that could be enacted. That being said though, I don't really think a law enforcing safe storage could actually do anything because it's not like the government can monitor that. So it would mostly just be a flavor law with no substance.

And on the topic of emails, I don't get what people are still hung up about still. Literally the FBI has stated multiple times. What she did was irresponsible because she didn't mark her emails properly with how confidential they were, but no ill will was meant. Additionally the majority of those emails were sent by staff and not herself. And the FBI didn't seem to think not marking emails with the right confidentiality was a proper reason for arrest as they'd have to arrest a majority of people working in Washington not just her and her staff as this is a common problem. So you can use it to argue that she wasn't very responsible with her position, but it's not exactly jail worthy. And honestly to go on a little tangent, I'm not saying her doing this is okay, but literally there have been significantly more things on the Trump side to worry about legally. And I feel like that's worth bringing up as this was for most an election of whose the lesser of two evils. As Trump currently has a few sexual assault cases against him, and was the one to open Trump University, a business that's basically been stated as a con at this point, with employees from it even reporting they've been instructed to try and get the people going there to go into debt to pay the outrageous prices they charge, and then give them something that is basically a motivational speech. Also, it's not a real university, even though they had claimed before to be able to give out degrees.

Also, why am I on FA debating politics. What am I doing with my life. I'm supposed to be fapping to weird furry porn.

The problem with "keeping corporations out of politics" is that, inevitably, the ones who claim this is a good thing never seem to think that it might affect their favorite corporations...like, say, the ACLU, the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood... Even limiting it to for-profit corporations (an artificial distinction if there ever was one) leaves out corporations like The New York Times, NBC Universal, Turner Broadcasting, on and on and on.

Further, in order to prohibit corporations from political speech, you have to define what political speech is. Do you trust government to define it in such a way as to remain neutral? A government led by, say, Donald Trump? Or would that government restrict your political speech but not mine?

That's why Citizens United must remain in effect: every alternative destroys freedom of speech.

DC v. Heller is important not because it was about a law that made it impossible to store a firearm in condition that permits its use for home defense. What's important is its clear and unambiguous holding that th right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not one that applies only to the states, as the Left would have you believe. As an individual right, the government cannot prohibit me from owning firearms absent good cause in my individual case. Overturning Heller wouldn't ban guns itself, but it would render gun bans at the federal and state level legally permissible. No matter how much a right is proclaimed and protected by the Constitution, if the courts won't enforce it, it's effectively repealed.

The problem with her emails is that some of the information in them was classified the moment they were created. Classification is not about markings, but about content, and she had the responsibility and the duty to understand what content merited classification and needed protection. It's now known with 99% certainty that her server was cracked by at least five separate foreign actors. But the issue there is not just her criminally negligent handling of emails. The real issue is that Hillary Clinton thinks she's above the law. Anyone else - ANYONE else - who did what she did would be in prison. She's likely to skate. I'll bet a steak dinner Barack Obama pardons her on his last day in office.

I'm fine with all corporations I like being kicked out of politics too. I think it almost always undermines the typical voter too much to be worth any of the positives. Also the news is protected under the freedom of press. It doesn't need that supreme courts decision to protect it.

Here's where the real problem with Citizens United is. With corporations being considered people, they no longer have a donation cap on how much they can donate to a candidate under the correct conditions. I'm talking about donations to super PACs. This basically is worrisome for the obvious reasons. It will make our elected officials (not just mine and not just yours, all of them) more likely to support something not for the people, but for a corporation. Often times allowing them to continue or start practices that are harmful to the environment or customer. One of the big ones lately have been predatory lending from pay day loans has been constantly getting looser and looser because they are funding a lot of candidates big time.

When it comes to the second amendment, I'll admit I rarely care too much about what happens at this point, because the main point of it is pretty fucked at this point. The whole point of the second amendment was for people to overthrow the government if it became too corrupt. The thing is that the second amendment was invented before bombing runs were a thing. Or nuclear weapons. Or long range missiles. They didn't even have heavy machine guns or tanks. The thing is as it stands, if a group of citizens tried to overthrow the government, they'd just get slaughtered. I don't care how many gun rights you give them or how many people joined them. Unless we started an initiative to give citizens ICBMs or tanks or bomber planes, the whole point of the second amendment is moot. That being said, a lot of Americans like to hunt, and I do believe the argument that if you ban guns you're just taking them away from people that aren't criminals. So I'm generally for people having plenty of gun rights (with the restriction that they take gun safety classes and things. You don't want stupid irresponsible people with guns.) But in all honesty, whatever opinion she takes on guns, whether she loves them or hates them would have very little effect on my opinion. Though I did admit in my previous comment that it's still probably a count against her to me. Just not a super major one. Honestly it generally follows my same opinions of drugs. I don't personally plan on using them and don't think other people using them will effect my life in any way, so I don't really care too much, but it's probably healthier for our country to have the people using them to do it in the open so they can be regulated.

Anyways, on the topic of emails. No one's arguing what she did was good. What she did was irresponsible. But in the government, this is actually a pretty common issue of people not marking confidential information correctly. The whole point of that is that a giant portion of the government hasn't gone to jail for it, not just Hillary. The big problem for Hillary is that it happened on a private server so it didn't have enough encryption for those kinds of messages. Now the FBI is thoroughly convinced that no ill will was meant, and that as long as she doesn't continue the practice she won't need to face any sentence for it. So it sucks she did it, and it is a good thing to bring up as a way to say that Hillary might not be the most responsible president. But the way people are bringing it up as Hillary being a traitor or a criminal is generally just not honest. It's a story of someone irresponsibly fucking up in the crowd of a bunch of government officials irresponsibly fucking up, not the criminal mastermind leaking US secrets.

Also, I kind of feel like all the messages back and forth have a bit of mean tone to them on both sides. So I just wanted to say this is nothing personal against you. I just really like politics and discussing them, and that you're probably pretty cool. ^-^

I think it will be a long while before people stop thinking like that, but at the very least I will try to be hopeful of the future. Lets find that better america.

http://imgur.com/a/qkwaN I really feel like this post has some merit too.

It was always going to be option B, especially considering this particular reaction:

https://i.redd.it/tb992snqruwx.jpg

Kek.

It amazes me how these people have absolutely no self awareness whatsoever

Damn, Endium. This was just beautiful. Thanks so much for sharing this.

I, for one, am NOT being all doom-and-gloom about Trump being President, and yet people are going so far off of the deep end, it's ridiculous. I mean, things like 'gay conversion therapy' are simply not going to happen. Even if Mike Pence REALLY wanted that, there is no fucking way that would get through the House and Senate, even if it was mostly Republican. It's absurd if you stop to think about it reasonably.

And things being 'like slavery'... it really makes you think how insane some people are taking this. Like we're seriously going to go back to Jim Crow/segregation laws after having our first black president.

This has to be one of the most controversial and volatile elections I've ever seen in America. Hell, I literally saw someone blocking EVERYONE that voted Trump and even excommunicating friends and family that voted Trump. That's insanity, like Trump would somehow make LGBT people afraid for their lives when this exists:
http://www.inquisitr.com/3702676/do.....gbt-for-trump/

So, yeah. No matter how anti-LGBT Mike Pence may be, 'gay conversion therapy' is not going to be a thing. It's strange, feeling like you're in the minority of being, well, reasonable and rational.

man no kidding that really was Cathardic

Yeah I had to watch it a few times, I was suffocating that much in a tiny room full of other people's farts.

Spot. On.

it was never in doubt that this was at least going to be a fight. People who didn't see it coming don't know America.

Thank you for posting this. It helped me update my blocklist nicely :3

Since this nation clearly doesnt want Californian views in it's politics, please, give us the 38 state ratifications we need to leave without going to war over the disagreement. (because of course Cali would lose any war) We can be tax and spend liberals off on our own, with our own money, and you wont need to worry beyond an ordinary Status of Forces agreement for maintaining US bases in an independant nation.

#CalExit

People have been pooh-poohing Texas secessionists for years. There was a whole hell of a lot of laughter coming out of California when the Texas Republican Party proposed a referendum on Texas secession.

If Texas can't secede, you can't either.

According to the texas supreme court case, it would take 38 states (3/4 majority) to agree to let California (or texas, same rules apply) leave the union.

Do you think the "let california fall into the ocean" faction is big enough to make that possible?

No. Sorry, folks, but we've put up with having a hard-left government foisted on us the past 8 years, and we didn't riot in the streets...and you weren't about to let us leave. Now it's your turn. Suck it up.

Hard left goverment? HA! In 2010, the Republicans gerymandered several states to have a lock on the house and senate.
Until Scalea died, the republicans had a lock on the courts, too, and the republican congress stonewalled her replacement.

2 years was barely enough time to get RomneyCare renamed and passed.

We just need 37 states to tell us not to let the door hit us on the way out.

You can't gerrymander the Senate. It's the entire state. And California is no shining jewel it's very, very thoroughly gerrymandered to ensure no Republican has a chance at office.

RomneyCare was not Obamacare. In particular, under Romneycare, if you liked your doctor, you could indeed keep your doctor, and if you liked your health plan, you could indeed keep your health plan.

Sorry, no. As much as I'd like to see California take its hard-left politics and quit screwing up the rest for he US, you get to stay and put up with it just like the rest of us have for the last 8 years.

This is post-2010 gerimandering in illinois
http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/archi.....ictedMapCC.jpg

This is California:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe.....ngress.tif.png

No republican stands a chance in office in california because an honest majority of the population is liberal.

Those two don't look all that different in gerrymandering potential, actually...and remember that Illinois is run by the Democrats, for the most part, and always to their advantage.

Don't forget the Voting Rights Act - and this part wasn't thrown out - mandates that voting districts be drawn not to dilute minority representation. That, in and of itself, often leads to gerrymandering - and that's mandated by federal law.

Right, I was misremembering. You're right about illinois.

I was thinking these states:
http://assets.motherjones.com/inter.....tacked-gop.png
from http://www.motherjones.com/politics.....election-chart

From the article you cite:

"Iyer pointed to a recent article in ProPublica that showed that in California, "Democrats managed to find a way to manipulate the process even though partisans weren't overtly involved." According to ProPublica, California Democrats "surreptitiously enlisted local voters, elected officials, labor unions and community groups to testify in support of configurations that coincided with the party’s interests," going so far as to invent "a local group to advocate for the Democrats' map.""

So California has no standing to complain about gerrymandering.

I disagree.

http://assets.motherjones.com/inter.....orth-ratio.png

compared to california, where 59% of the vote elected 39/53 slots in 2014.
The worst california's "non partisan" gerymandering does is a 1 to 1.25 ratio.

Compared to those blatant partisan redistricing in the article, there's no contest.

Sorry, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I will leave you with this thought, though: Texas, at least, was blatantly gerrymandered in favor of the Democrats until 1990. What goes around comes around.

why not both?
(This is to tonya's first reply. FA is terrible for managing comments.)

Why not both? I've got no problem with that.

But it'll never happen. The folks who want California to secede still think Texas should be under Washington's yoke so they can be ruled by their betters.

It's just that the same people who have been denying Texas for years now want to secede themselves when one election goes against them due to their overreach, and that's just bullshit.

What's your source on that? Liberals have been telling texas "just go already" for years,for the same reason conservitives have been telling California to get out.

And yea, no, it's not one election.

Just from my own imperfect memory...
Rather than get work done, a republican congress would rather impeach Bill Clinton
Conservitive justice Antonin Scalia led the supreme court decision to stop the florida recount, letting W steal the election.
W's War in Iraq, Haliberton, GWB53.com email scandal. (No complaints about afganistan, only that iraq distracted us from sealing the deal, and things got out of hand while we wernt looking)
The recession caused by W's economic policies.
The 2010 swing state gerymandering we've been arguing about above.
The republican stonewalling, including of Obama's rightful replacment of Antonin Scalia's supreme court seat.
When it looked like Hillary was going to win, public talk of ANOTHER 4 years of stonewalling and "letting the supreme court literally die out"

Having almost half the nation support anyone who has the views Trump has proclaimed was merely the final straw- a realization that the rest of the nation really is not compatable with Californian values. It's not that all those other things were selfish politicians fighting for power, it's that the nation really believes that what we Californians believe are awful, are really the right thing to do.

So yea, we're out. Even if the evidence of electoral fraud in Trump's favor pans out, the electoral coledge flips and we get hillary, I'm still for CalExit.

(Misdirected reply to Draj immediately above)

Mother Jones's sneering coverage of the latest Texas secession resolution is typical: http://www.motherjones.com/politics.....ion-resolution

And I can list just as many causes form the last 8 years ad you did.

And having half the nation support anyone who has the views Obama does was the last straw for many of us...but instead of complaining and suddenly deciding it's time to leave (the Texas secession movement has been a thing for many years), we stuck around and fought, just like the liberals said we needed to do.

The rest of the nation is no more and no less compatible with California values as it is with Texas values. You see, ideological diversity is as needed and as valuable as the false kind the Left loves to push. But the Left wants nothing of the sort. Anyone who espouses conservative values is ostracized and demonized and actively silenced. We finally stood up and said "No more! This is our line in the sand."

I will guard-damn-tee you this: if the Electoral College flips, it will start a civil war. Real, live, shooting war. The people of the 50 states and DC have spoken, and if the Electoral College does not respect that, then all bets are off and there will be nothing to resting the people's anger.

http://tdmsresearch.com/2016/11/10/.....lection-table/

You're right, the people spoke... but were all heard?

What makes you think the exit polls were accurate?

(Another reply failure, stilll talking with tigeress)

Statistics. Based on sample size, you can deturmine what your 99% confidence range is- that is, a range of possible values that is 99% likely to include the true result.

Assuming, of course, a representitive sample. These are professionals, I do not suspect they accidently or deliberately altered their data. But if the "shy trump voter" theory is right, it can explain the flawed data- people systematically lying to pollsters.

Which is why I posed it as a hypothetical. EVEN IF we got hillary, I woul still be for Calexit.

To everyone who thinks that Trump is going to declare open season on Gays, have you joined the Pink Pistols yet? If not, why not?

(I also think you're being Silly, Trump is probably the most pro gay president ever. Just watch.)

Actually, here's an even better answer, from His 60 minutes interview tonight. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/polit.....iew/index.html

Trump said he's "fine" with same-sex marriage remaining legal across the country, and wouldn't appoint Supreme Court judges with the goal of reversing that ruling.
"It's irrelevant because it was already settled. It's law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it's done," Trump said.
He added: "These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They've been settled. And- I'm -- I'm fine with that."

The problem is Mike Pence. All it takes is trump convincing the GOP that it's better to impeach him for his pussy comments than let the New York Liberal mess up their plans, and we have one of the most socially reactionary presidents we've had in 50 years.

Pence is VP, and VP's basically have no power. but if you're really scared of Pence, then do what you can to dissuade the idiots who are talking about assassinating Trump.

VPs have no power? Are you old enough to remember Dick Cheney?

They may not have any official standing, but Trump supposedly offered one of his VP possibles a puppetmaster role, running the nation while trump figureheads.

"Trump supposedly offered one of his VP possibles a puppetmaster role, running the nation while trump figureheads. "

Source? I mean, other than DNC Disinformation campaigns?

The initial release seems to be this NYT article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/m.....mate.html?_r=0

"But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?"

As someone who considers himself left, I actually kind of agree with Pie, here. I never actually openly SHAMED people, but I also never discussed, either, and maybe that's on me: maybe it's time to actually UNDERSTAND why people vote the way they do.

I knew someone at work who I called by their legal name, not knowing she wanted to be called by an entirely different name, and she took a highly offended, almost combative stance with me. "Being offended at people" isn't the disease, it's the symptom. The disease is assuming that people have it out for you on an unfounded basis, and that's one facet of why discussion breaks down. Maybe she had a fucked up past to disassociate herself with her legal name, but until people can learn to read minds, getting outraged over something so trivial as getting pronouns or names wrong doesn't work in the real world. I'm willing to call someone by their personal pronoun, because RESPECT is at the heart of civil discussion, but that also means they can't emotionally break down, accuse, label me a bigot, and pursue playing the role of the victim if I accidentally use the wrong name/pronoun, because that gets everyone NOWHERE.