@gaypraha2:

My country requires ID to vote.  You also have to bring in the enumeration document saying where you are allowed to vote that includes name and address.

same here you need 2 documents ID + card issued when you register for voting and you can vote only where you are registered.

Only voting where one is registered is a good way to prevent fraud.  There are many cases where busloads of people vote at one place, and then are transported to the next voting place, etc.

Even at the same voting place, some people would wear disguises including hats, mustaches, wigs, etc.  I'll bet Hillary brought suitcases filled with every color pantsuit she had, and probably tried dark glasses and a mustache too!

Kimmel is a whore.  He'll do whatever makes him cash.  He has no morals.

@Oscarbingham:

My exact feelings.

It's sickening that when ISIS commits a horrific act of terrorism, the media report it far and wide - giving ISIS the attention they were seeking.. yet when Trump (and Putin) dismantle and crush ISIS, the media barely even mention it!

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

@raphjd:

What the fuck is wrong with Congress that they won't fix obvious and non controversial loopholes such as the one with insanity.

If there was a vote in the US, I'm sure that very few would support the current loophole.

I think the argument can be made that it could turn into a slippery slope. Many people do not trust Democrats to just stop at saying those who are declared mentally insane should not have weapons. Once Republicans give them an opening on this issue, they very well may exploit that opening. If Republicans could come together and pass something that clearly states no other attempts can be made to take guns from legal, sane gun owners; then something may get done. Anything else can become a slippery slope situation. I'm sure we all remember when Joe Biden called a gun lover a "nut" or something similar to that during a 2008 primary debate for simply saying he loves his gun. That's not a good sign.

If it were up to the American people, of course the loophole would have been closed many, many years ago. But the special interests most times outweigh average constituents when it comes to influence.

When I lived in New Orleans / Metairie, I once walked into a lobby of a hotel AS it was being robbed by 6 guys in masks - carrying the the hotel safe out.  I was within arms reach of them.  (They were all caught after "someone" gave a thorough description of them and I gave the pigs the tag number, vehicle make and model and direction they took off in too).  On another day, I was attacked by two short mexican laborers who leaped out of their pickup truck.  I assume they were trying to mug me but failed to knock me off my feet.  In both of these incidents.. I shudder to think what would have happened if I had a gun on me.  They could have taken the gun and shot me, or they might have had a weapon of their own and not hesitated to use it before I used the gun, or I might have used it on them and permanently injured or killed them.  None of those 3 outcomes were worth just letting them go without a fight.  They didn't want to fight me (well, the Mexicans TRIED but gave up) and I didn't want to fight them.  
Today I was in a Walmart and this guy in a vest, tie, dress shirt, etc.  is in the sporting goods department buying a two big boxes of bullets.. two different kinds.  I was thinking "someone owns a gun.. fine.. but why would they need to buy bullets unless they were shooting the gun?  and what were they shooting?"

Frederick, I'm very sorry those situations happened to you. You're absolutely right, in those instances a gun would have escalated the situation and it's better to let authorities handle it. However, what if someone breaks into your home while you're in your kitchen cooking and they start shooting at you? Wouldn't you rather have a gun to shoot them with before they killed you? How else are you going to protect yourself? I could understand not wanting to escalate a situation, but what if it is already on that level and they've shot at you or have even shot you?

That's an EXCELLENT scenario you pointed out.  Obviously the person who broke in has the upper hand in that they have the weapon and are quite prepared to use it..  What am I supposed to do?  Tell the person "Oh, would you be a doll and wait here while I go get my gun from the other room, make sure it is loaded, take the safety off, and come back to shoot you?"    I've heard of people that keep a loaded gun with the safety off in every drawer in the house.   Even in that case, is the person who broke in going to allow you to open a drawer and pull out a gun?   Far more likely is for a kid to find the gun and go out playing with it, and shoot themselves with it or cause some other mischief.. or a burglar come in without a gun.. open a drawer and find your gun.. and if you interrupted him he would use your gun to shoot YOU!   I really can't think of a scenario where a gun would be an effective DEFENSE.   I would suggest someone get a dog, or a recording of a dog, or an alarm system instead of a gun.  Again, I can't come up with a good reason to have a gun, I can come up with a LOT of bad reasons to have a gun.

By the way, very few people know this.. but of all the police that get shot.. 25% of them get shot with their OWN weapon!   They are supposed to be highly trained and experts, etc.  Those are not very good odds!   Police are quite a bit like Barney Fife.

Youtube Video

Good point. I believe the laws in place can stop a ton of gun violence if they were actually enforced. The loopholes can be closed by Republicans passing careful legislation, so careful that Democrats can't exploit it. Other than that, I don't think much can be done without addressing the gun lobbyists and other special interests on both sides. Would it be right to do a buyback program to take legal, sane gun owners' guns?

Also, you're absolutely right about the cops. There are many cop stories where they accidentally shot themselves and gave the description of black men who did it ;D

In regards to cop shootings.. often not only are cops shot with their OWN weapons, but the cops get injured from the bullets fired by OTHER cops.  There have been recent cases where one cop shoots at a suspect through a window.. only to find out the suspect they just killed was another cop.

Obama had 8 years to do something, anything about cops.. but did absolutely NOTHING!   No excuse for that.

@royalcrown89:

@cteavin:

@Frederick:

… or to summarize.. the allegations of collusion are nothing but a nothing burger.  In fact, until Van Jones of CNN said this.. he was a big shot at CNN.. since then, they have muzzled him.    Van Jones called the collusion story a "Nothing Burger"
Youtube Video

But it's a nothing burger that people believe exists. Had Trump not made a big deal out of Obama's birth certificate, I'd be angry about the whole investigation. Seems to me he's getting payback. Also, the Republicans are getting a taste of obstruction aka payback.

I'm hoping that when it's all over both sides can let it go and get to running the country.

If it is a nothing burger once the investigation ends, it would be best for everyone to move on. I also believe if the president is successful with getting tax reform, the amount of extra stabilization it will bring to an already stabilizing market will overshadow anything the left even attempts to throw at him. It would truly change the direction of things. I'm heavily against major tax cuts for the wealthy, but I'll accept them if it means having a robust market that actually does create jobs and raises wages (would need to see immediate results of that). However, there needs to be a starting point with trust and only the president can lead on that front.

No, it's a nothing burger until Mueller comes up with something.. and so far he has not.

I'd like to see someone investigate CNN for giving Hillary the presidential debate questions.. and also investigate Hillary for not revealing that she got the questions for the debate before the debate.

@cteavin:

I only get a little glimpse of what must be near round the clock coverage in the 24-hour news cycle of this.

Me, I'm not a fan of people, mostly women, coming forward to say they were raped. If there's no proof it becomes he said, she said and the current cultural norm is to believe the victim.

Also, there are (petty?) decades-old grievances coming to light. A good example of this is a woman who still holds a grudge that Ben Aflac (whom I despise as a person) grabbed her boob on TV. Let it go. Or, am I wrong?

I wish they media would do more to distinguish incidences of sexual assault.    For instance, there is a  massive difference between someone using a crowbar to break into someone's home and hold a knife to their throat and rape them….  and someone coming onto a movie mogul to get a part in a movie - and when the mogul takes advantage of the situation by patting one's ass or making a suggestive remark, etc.  instead of just walking away or not having the encounter in the first place.  Since supposedly "everyone" knew that Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted actresses, why would an actress ever allow themselves to be caught in a compromising position with him?    By the way, it was Harvey's brother BOB that finally exposed Harvey for being a monster.