Let's just break this down. If she were to choose, Hillary would obviously give amnesty to illegals who entered the United States... illegally, while Trump completely respects the veterans. A veteran who is in an economic crisis would deserve amnesty much more than an illegal immigrant, obviously. The wall will happen if he's elected, folks. Our borders do not help, as we see people climbing over them every single day. We need a wall guarded with some sort of higher security to keep the illegal immigrants out.
Why do you mix immigrants and veterans in the same sentence? Why do veterans need "amnesty"? Amnesty from what? Also, let me ask you a thing: you do know that to give any "amnesty", you need to pass a law for that through Congress first. Do you believe the Republicans in Congress will pass that law if she wins? Because, if they don't, then she can't give amnesty to anybody and your fear goes away just like that.
Second, the wall with Mexico is going to do little to help. Not least because the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico has dropped by 8% since 2010 (they are leaving back to their country!) and, consequently, the arrivals from Mexico have fallen by a whooping 80%. No, the problem is that more than half of the illegal immigrants come to the US legally, crossing the border through the official checkpoints with valid visas... and then simply stay once they run out. So having a 100-km tall border wall wouldn't change a single thing to the majority of illegal immigrants who never needed to climb over it to get in in the first place. That's a good waste of billions of dollars!
Source.
Can you really trust a woman who was confirmed to have used her personal e-mail to store classified information? If that isn't enough, the Director of the FBI had even confirmed that a Russian hacker had gotten a hold of this e-mail. There's obviously a ton of corruption in this system, especially since the director is a Republican and is letting this happen. There was obviously something that happened when Bill Clinton hopped on to Loretta Lynch's private jet and 'talked about golf', which they obviously had not done.
Interestingly, the FBI and the General Attorney are different institutions with no direct connection. The fact that it was a Republican who decided that not charges should be raised because she didn't break any law may also be understood as further evidence that she did nothing illegal...
like most other similar cases suggested.
Also, she is in favor of super delegates, which is just not how our democracy should work, as it is just unfair for delegates to choose who they want, not representing the people.
Super delegates have a reason to exist. I do not think they should be allowed to vote against the primary winner, or overrule the results (something that never happened), but they have a reason to exist, and that is ensuring that whoever won the primary can win the convention ballot without a contest. The Republicans get around this by having a completely unfair system that gives hundreds of free bonus delegates to the winner, to artificially inflate their majority and get them over the line. The Democratic system is purely proportional- you get 52% of the votes, you get 52% of the delegates (caucuses and low-delegate primaries slightly distort the exact count but not by much). In that case, if an O'Malley manages to take 10, 12% of the delegates, it'd be possible that the winning candidate would end with just under 50% of the vote... and then without a majority despite having won more or less convincingly. Superdelegates are there to sway the first ballot in favour of the winner. Should the amount of superdelegates be cut to, say, 5%, so they can't really swing the result? Possibly. Is it a bad, manipulative idea by default? It's no more unfair that deciding that whoever wins Florida by a single vote takes 99 delegates and the others take 0, even if they lost by a single vote.
I also don't understand how a system that isn't capitalist can really run.
The key is, there are many flavours of "capitalism". You can have a system that is capitalist but where the state controls 50% of the economy and still be immensely prosperous and rich- it's called Sweden or Norway. You can have extremely unequal and horrendously run capitalist systems, and beautifully run systems which are only half capitalist- that's what social-democracy is all about.
Again, look at Sweden. The Government takes just over 50% of the GDP and spends it on public services. How is that communist hellhole holding up, according to the OECD?
And the US?
Well, I'll be! Though I'll concede that in the "income" section, the US has a whooping 100%, compared to Sweden's 51%. But if I had to choose? I think I can spare some cash in hand in exchange for everything else.
When Obama came in, he totally destroyed the economy
ACTUALLY....
have you heard about the Lehman Brothers collapse, triggered by the Bush administration, that caused a world crisis and -yes- ruined the US economy just a few months before Obama took charge? A collapse caused by a massive bubble in mortgage debt that grew during Bush's terms, incidentally
. Also, Bush inherited a budget surplus from the previous Democratic administration and turned it into a deficit thanks to the Iraq war and tax cuts to the wealthy that, amazingly, didn't "pay themselves off"... just redistributed more money to the 1%. And yes, the massive 2009 deficit wasn't just because Obama decided to splurge like a madman because he's just that chaotically evil- he did it to plug the hole Bush had caused. He could have not done that and cut spending massively instead, but then the US would have ended back in recession- just look at the EU, who didn't spend and latched onto austerity instead. We are growing at less than 1% annually!
Cutting all of these programs would be great. I don't understand what's so great about Common Core, as it just doesn't help! I'm in three honors classes, and they're ignoring what we need in order to learn by throwing random questions at us that don't even help us understand the book. Suprisingly, if we cut this education, our taxes would have a drastic cut, and local governments could do what's best for their students.
Wait what? If you cut spending on education, what would happen? Tax cuts? What would people do with their extra money that is more important than schooling children? And common core
is not actually anything that costs money- it's just a way to unify the topics taught all across the country! It's just a way to ensure that kids from Colorado and Virginia are learning the same at school, so you don't end finding out what you are going to learn in school through a postcode lottery.
You hear people say that Trump is against the LGBT community, but this is simply not true. His first appearance after Orlando's mass shooting was him recognizing the LGBT community as part of America and part of our culture. On The Today Show, Trump said that he wouldn't care if Caitlyn Jenner used the women's bathroom in Trump tower. It wasn't bothered before, so he's saying why bother it now. I think the big thing that confuses people is when Trump is saying what Obama did is unconstitutional. Even though he is in support of the LGBT community, anything like this should have been up to the states, not up to the Federal Government.
Well, the problem is that
the Official Republican Party Platform, aka what Trump is running on, supports:
- Overturning the Supreme Court (no relation to the Federal Government) ruling, thereby re-banning same-sex marriage in several states.
- Endorsing "gay conversion therapies", implying that LGTB people are somehow ill and need therapy to become straight.
- Endorsing "natural families composed of a man and a woman", which is clearly not a shot against LGTB families.
- Forcing transgender people to use the bathroom that matches their genitals instead of their gender, which is just an ideological "psyduck you" as it serves no other purpose than to make their lives harder for no reason.
- And last, but not least, passing discrimination laws that allow business to deny their services to people by reason of their sexual preferences.
Incidentally, nobody did anything unconstitutional- the Supreme Court interprets the Consitution, and it decided that same-sex marriage is constitutional and protected by the Constitution. That's all. And the platform Trump is running on wants to overturn that ruling. Do you see why LGBT people may not be happy with Trump's party?
The Constitution is something we must use in order to run our country. We can't let people illegally obtain weapons while some people who mean no harm aren't permitted to get a gun because of gun control. You see that gun control laws have been strengthened, and because of this Orlando happened. We might need some control, but all of these shootings are happening because people are obtaining firearms illegally. If I was permitted to shoot, I'd take advantage of it even if I were younger, because I want to stay safe, no matter what it takes.
Actually, nobody strenghtened any gun laws at any point, because the Republicans vetoed any attempts. So I don't know what you are talking about?