Hillary Ahead By 14 Points. Trump In A Tailspin.

I don't know how to do that but it is only two, revelette2 and skirby.

Signature line is an option under 'My Profile'. I was kind of kidding, as I'm not having any trouble keeping up.

made me laugh...

Oh well, I feel sort of stupid changing back and forth...but thank you for your help.

Well, I'm sorry for chest thumping. I am just really happy trump won and I don't feel so alone in my political views anymore. I might say five words on a2k and get 9 thumbs down and some name calling, and I live near Chicago where almost everybody is liberal. Finally some people are seeing the light! The Supreme Court Justice thing would have sickened me if hillary got the pick, as we would probably forfeit gun rights and freedom of speech would be freedom of speech for black people only, like it is now with Obama. And freedom of religion. That too.

Your inability to understand the Second Amendment has distorted your political views. You're watching too much Fox News.
Do you really understand the Second Amendment? Study it; you might learn something. Also learn about Amendments: They do not take away your right to own a gun.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
Trump can't change the Second Amendment in any way.

Responding to something illegal with an extra-judicial assassination is not legal.



It would take quite a stretch to make that scenario legal but yeah, this is how you would try to do it. But in real life (vs internet tough guy fantasy) there is not really much scenario where that would be a proportional response to the threat.

Basically what Clinton wanted to do was make it easy to sue gun companies. She wanted to run them under by holding them accountable for every idiot who uses a gun in an illegal way.

So, your kind of right, she doesn't want to TAKE guns, she wants to eventually make them impossible to obtain for citizens not part of the police force or military.

This is the same idea as suing a bakery for having religious objections to making homosexual wedding cakes. That would be an attack on religious freedom. The counterpoint to that is "discrimination", and than one could say "you have a choice who you sleep with, it's not a color or organ your born with ", and you can go back and forth all day. I think personally think not selling the cake would be a waste of perfectly good money. However I still see suing them as destroying religious freedom, people should be able to run their own business that they paid for as they see fit.

Liberals don't understand that indirectly destroying our freedoms and liberties is still destroying them. I say no more and I hope Trump ends up doing at least half of what he said he would.

I have no problem with peaceful protesters. However I do have a problem with paid rioters and looters. And arsonists who in my opinion if they try to firebomb any type of building especially when occupied should be shot on sight.

Clinton hasn't enough power to take away our Second Amendment rights to own a gun or to sue gun companies. Study the laws.

It is not illegal. In most jurisdictions if you look up a statute for justifiable homicide it will include arson of dwelling or occupied building.

New York State penal code:

S 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and
in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he or
she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate
what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted
commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises.
Such person may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly
physical force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for
such purpose, and may use deadly physical force if he or she reasonably
believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or
attempted commission of arson

Yeah, but in NYC, that deadly physical force better not involve a firearm.

California Penal Code:





197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or, surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.


198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.



198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.



199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the
person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and

There are plenty of people who are legally licensed to carry a pistol in New York City.

Quote Baldimo:
No, that's the darling of the right wing. Talk radio especially pushes that term for well over a decade now, and it is clear that since the voting issues usually seem to happen in Democratic neighborhoods election after election, it is a term used to put aside any accusations of fixed elections. As in, the people claiming their votes were stolen were too ignorant to know how to follow directions, they screwed up, that's all.

Quote Baldimo:

It is true that Trump's support comes largely from white people, especially men, without a college degree. The media, on this election, has taken to use the label uneducated to apply to people without a 4 yr college diploma. To my knowledge, I have never used the term "uneducated" to refer to someone without a college degree, as far as I'm concerned you're educated if you can read a newspaper and do simple arithmetic. Whether that's enough education for a specific job you're applying for is a different story. I have a four year degree and there are plenty of jobs I don't have the education for either. However, that "uneducated" label is specific for this election, the "low information voter" push has been used by conservatives against Democratic voting minorities for well over a decade.

Libertarians are usually considered on the conservative side of the aisle.

Quote Baldimo:

That is the supposed definition conservatives give for "low information voter", but it is clear that it's a euphemism for what they consider dumb minorities who can't cope. Fact is there is an entrenched effort by conservatives to make poor people-many of whom are ethnic minorities-not vote. Whether its voter ID laws or cutting down the number of polling places where there is early voting or voting machines that are supremely hackable or adding a ton of referendums onto the ballot in minority neighborhoods which slow the line down to a crawl, Republicans want to hold down the minority vote.

About the voting machines, you must have missed my link to the video where Princeton computer whizzes show how easy the Diebold machines are to hack. Bear in mind old man Diebold himself guaranteed a Bush 43 victory over Gore:



And the Princeton study gives even deeper details:
http://citpsite.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/oldsite-htdocs/pub/ts06EVT.pdf