Do Americans take Trump seriously?

Two thumbs up to that post roger.

This artificial division of right vs left is total BS.

Thank you. I hope neither of us follows a set of beliefs only because someone has declared it to be right or left

That so many support and believe what Trump says proves the bigotry of the country. It's shameful. They might as well wear the nazi logo on their shoulders to identify who they are.

I'm sure you've heard of the 442nd Infantry Battalion during WWII. If not, let me know.

I respected the young men who after having themselves and their families treated so badly refused to serve in the US military and went to prison instead more then the 442 members.

Got to give the republicans credit. They seem to be able to plan ahead. Got republicans into the governship of a lot of states and gamed the voting for the house so that it will be at least 10 years before we can do anything about the house if the democrates get off their asses and start planing ahead also. The senate can be democratic this cycle if they push it but I have to believe the democratic party are a bunch of boobs. Or maybe the 1% has them in hand and its time for a third party established by the citizens on the ground. Not the old guard, a new guard for the people. No, not Bernie, he has some good ideas but started too late to be viable. If Trump wins the presidency I think people will be ready for that third party after 4 or 8 years of his autocratic rule.

If you know your history what we have here is what was going on in Germany during the time of Hitler. Unemployment was high and many Germans blamed the Jews for their problems and the government for not doing more. Look around you, people think that our economy is the worst in the world even though it is one of the best, and some loud mouth bigot comes on screaming what they want to hear and they disengage their brains just as the Germans did in the 1930's. History repeats itself but it isent taught in schools any more because the powers that be think its irrelevant. Of course even if it was I'm not sure that it would do any good since the average citizen has the memory retention of a 3 year old.

Really? Hi, I am McGentrix and I am very pro-gun and pro-choice as well. Kill all the animals and babies you want. Just don't try to foist your opinions on me or make me pay for either.

Let me ask you the same sort of question McGentrix, what does "pro-choice" mean to you?

Are you against things like the clinic laws in Texas which function as a way to shut down abortion providers? It is rare for me meet someone who is both pro-choice (by the current NARAL standard) and pro-gun.

I would be pleasantly surprised, McGentrix, if you were as outraged by the laws in Texas shutting down clinics and severely limiting the access to abortion in their state as I am.

I think trying to impose ones religious views on other people should be banned from any form of government. I think that if a woman wants/needs an abortion, proper facilities should be made available. The only thing I think is that after 5 (or some other arbitrary number) abortions, you get a hysterectomy. It should not be used as a form of birth control. I've always said this.

If you want an abortion (and you're not a crazy person), you should be able to get one. If you don't want one, you shouldn't be forced to get one.

If you want a gun (and you're not a crazy person), you should be able to get one. If you don't want a gun, no one should force one upon you.

You didn't exactly answer my question about the Texas case currently before the Supreme Court. But I am still impressed, logical consistency is hard to find in libertarians these days and I respect that.

Does this answer the OP's original question?.

NYC Vegans Selling "Donald Trump Getting Punched In The Face" Donuts

I think so.

Been following libertarian movement since the 90s and 'pro gun' and pro choice has always been their position. It's the Reps & Dems that seem inconsistent to me. For example, Dems are pro choice on women's right to choose but not when it comes to choice of schools. Reps are for limited government unless you want to legalize weed or anything else contrary to their 'morals'.

Just like the Pro-choice movement?

If someone has been declared insane by a court then they are more than likely in an institution. If they were declared insane, treated and deemed "cured" or at least no threat to anyone around them they should never-the-less be stripped of their 2nd Amendment right?

There are quite a few people on the left who believe it is unfair to strip someone who has committed a felony of his or her right to vote and I totally agree with them, once the person has discharged his or duty to society (served the sentence and paid all fines and restitution owed).

I don't think people in prison should be allowed to vote and I don't think people in mental institutions should be allowed to own guns. I can see how it would be tempting to deprive anyone who has been institutionalized (prison or mental hospital) for violent actions to be stripped of their 2nd Amendment right, but that still puts a lie to the notion of rehabilitation and successful treatment. I certainly don't believe this has been discussed enough in the public sphere.

The vast majority of people who have been treated for mental illness do not pose a threat to society, and plastering a scarlet "I" (for insane) on them that enables the State to deprive them of rights is a "solution" driven by senseless fear.

Often we learn after the fact that the mass shooter displayed numerous indications of mental illness but nothing was done. I certainly don't favor a society where everyone gets to report his or her neighbor as insane and watch them carted away, but certainly there must be ways to better enable intervention before a tragedy strikes.

Typically after a mass shooting we find that none of the regulations proposed would have stopped it. The only way to eliminate the risk entirely is to eliminate private gun ownership entirely. That shouldn't happen and it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that the Anti-Gun movement is operating in good faith. My evidence is the desire to prohibit anyone on the No-Fly list from owning a gun. Given how riddled with errors and devoid of due process this list is, this is a horrible idea that sounds like it make sense to the uneducated.

Remarking about Trump and what Germans went through under the Nazis in the same breath is comparing him to Hitler. It's very typical of hyperbolic Trump-Haters to go right to the edge of unequivocally comparing him to Hitler, but not to take that final step so they can maintain they never actually made the comparison.

Give it time though. If he wins the nomination. Explicit comparisons will be the norm.

I can't abide the man and he will almost assuredly act as an authoritarian, to the fullest extent possible, if he wins the White House, but that's a long, long way from the fascists of the 20th Century. Woodrow Wilson was more a fascist than Trump will ever be because he was the leader of the party most expected to resist such things as the Sedition Act of 1918, and it went along with him. The Democrats during a Trump presidency will not be forced to display their hypocritical ways.

The relevance of your response escapes me.

How droll

Democrats try to ban guns every chance they get. I think I'll listen to their actions instead of their words.

I would be pro choice if there were some effort to allow men to have some choice as well. I'd even be happy just with a serious effort to develop male contraception. Absent society caring about male choice, I tend towards neutrality on the issue.

People who propose bans on assault weapons should be incarcerated for life just for proposing it. There is no reason to have such people in our society.

You misread his comment. He was saying that it was your definition that was childish.