Bernie Sanders; Trump is a Pathological lier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5V2_r2m-Q8

- Some of the people who come are dangerous, but it's not close to be the majority like Trump implied.

Except... he never said nor implied a majority.

There's drugs comming to the us ilegally because the US has a very bad drug policy. The hole war in Mexico is a consequence of american drug policies.

Ah, so its America's problem that Mexico has drug problems. Just like its Trump's problem when Bernie supporters violently try to suppress his rallies. Or just like its the Police's fault that there were criminals harassing Trump's supporters in Chicago. Its due to a variety of reasons, ineffective policies from the Mexican government to suppress drug, and a weak border so that drug mules can enter unfettered.

The right to protest is secured on the first amendment. Trump has the right to speak all the bullshit he wants, and anyone has the right to protest against it. The protests just escalated when supporters of both sides started to throw insults at each other. The police failed to prevent a violent outcome of the situation. But still, the protesters have the right to protest, the first amendment guarantee their right to do so. But I guess you Trump supporters just know the second amendment am I right?

They have the right to protest yes, in fact most Trump rallies have small groups of protestors outside, and that is perfectly fine. What they don't have the right to, however, is disrupt the rally. These so called 'protestors' try to shout Trump down when he is expressing his opinion in his private event, or try to completely shut down a peaceful political rally, as seen in Chicago. This was not a mere protest, this was a suppression of free speech. Not to mention all the violence and abuse from Bernie supporters during the event, with Police officers and Trump supporters suffering personal abuse.

I am sorry if I don't know every quote of trump to the letter,

[/quote]

Well, then you're obviously the one to blame when you start making flawed observations from your incomplete knowledge.

It's incite misogyny and the superiority of men over women. As said before, it's unacceptable to have a presidential candidate saying this kind of things.

No it does not and I don't see how it does. Besides, its rather amusing that we have a Brazilian saying whats acceptable or unacceptable an American Presidential candidate should do.

Edited 3/14/2016 01:33:26

just maybe, BLM is born out of a legitimate problem.

They're born from a legitimate problem, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement (In general) tends to behave very idiotically and is often as racist as the people they claim to oppose.

BLM is creating more problems then they are fixing.

it's harder, for example, to get jobs if you are a minority skinhue.

No it's not. Not anymore. Now we have affirmative action and enforced diversity requirements that tell businesses they must hire so many of "X" group regardless of if there's a more qualified candidate.

Except... he never said nor implied a majority.

He definitely implified it, or at best, mispoke.

"Mexicans are killers and rapists, and some, I suppose, are good folk."

Ah, so its America's problem that Mexico has drug problems.

I'm pretty sure what TeamGuns is advocating is less American intervention in Mexico, and tuning down the war on drugs. Furthermore, it wouldn't even be a problem if drugs were legalised.

Just like its Trump's problem when Bernie supporters violently try to suppress his rallies.

Yes - first of all, "violently supressing his rallies" is a great overstatement. The 1989 Bucharest rally was "violently supressed". The Jewish voice in Germany in 1938 were "violently supressed". The independence activists in Kenya in the 1950s were "violently supressed". This is far from it. Second, yes, it's his problem. What, are you encouraging some police country in which it's illegal to speak out against someone you like?

Or just like its the Police's fault that there were criminals harassing Trump's supporters in Chicago.

Yes...whose else fault is it, other than the crimers themselves? Really?

What they don't have the right to, however, is disrupt the rally.

They have the right to do anything that isn't illegal, so yes, peacefully disrupting a rally is very much a righteous thing to do.

These so called 'protestors' try to shout Trump down when he is expressing his opinion in his private event, or try to completely shut down a peaceful political rally, as seen in Chicago.

Stop whining. It's their right to speak out against what they don't like, even insult. Now, what they can't legally do is spread misinformation, which is a shameful cutting of the freedom of speech.

Its due to a variety of reasons, ineffective policies from the Mexican government to suppress drug, and a weak border so that drug mules can enter unfettered.

Really, folk have researched this stuff, in depth. It's almost unanimously accepted that the American war on drugs was a total failure, achieving the opposite of intent.

Besides, its rather amusing that we have a Brazilian saying whats acceptable or unacceptable an American Presidential candidate should do.

What is that supposed to mean? You criticise TeamGuns for some ridiculous oneliners, look at this, eh?

No it's not. Not anymore. Now we have affirmative action and enforced diversity requirements that tell businesses they must hire so many of "X" group regardless of if there's a more qualified candidate.

I'm not sure on the specificities, but I'm pretty sure affirmative action requires a nonproportional quota, meaning that if the blackskin population is 20%, 10% of who you hire must be blackskin. That said, I am definitely for getting rid of affirmative action, not for stepping it up.

Edited 3/14/2016 01:49:11

@Pulsey

Except... he never said nor implied a majority.

Now you don't know your quote my friend.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

The world "some", implies that only a minority is good.


The drug war in mexico is a consequence of drug policies in the us... Mexico is a supplier because the United States is the demand. If you just legalized drugs all of the mexican drug cartels would need to find other occupations no? If the mexican government isn't able to stop the cartels, it's because they're too rich and too strong for it. And they've tried to go the hard way, it has only caused more deaths and pain to the mexican people. Plus, the US intervenes directly in the mexican war on drugs, so it's right to say the US failed there too.


About the Chicago incident, as I said there is a right to protest. Wether it's 5 people or 50 thousand, it's their right to protest against trump. Things escaladated because of both sides, blaming this on exclusively on the anti-trump protesters is pathetic.

Well, then you're obviously the one to blame when you start making flawed observations from your incomplete knowledge.

And yet, my incomplete knowlage of a quote was right. It's a bad argument when you misquote trump in the beginning of your comment.

No it does not and I don't see how it does. Besides, its rather amusing that we have a Brazilian saying whats acceptable or unacceptable an American Presidential candidate should do.

Was waiting for the xenophobic comment. For this I will answer: it's a shame that a brazilian must lecture you about your own country.

Edited 3/14/2016 01:51:35

The world "some", implies that only a minority is good.

Really??? 'Some' implies a plurality, it doesn't imply a majority at all. If you want to suggest a majority, that would be 'most.' I know English isn't your first language, but you are obviosuly cherry-picking and stretching definitions to fit your confirmation bias.

If you just legalized drugs all of the mexican drug cartels would need to find other occupations no?

Legalizing drugs? How about legalizing murder so that assassins would be out of jobs?

If the mexican government isn't able to stop the cartels, it's because they're too rich and too strong for it. And they've tried to go the hard way, it has only caused more deaths and pain to the mexican people. Plus, the US intervenes directly in the mexican war on drugs, so it's right to say the US failed there too.

Mexico's drug war is Mexico's problem. Trump proposes a wall and stricter border control to stem the inflow of drugs into America, he doesn't propose intervening in Mexico war against drug cartels.

About the Chicago incident, as I said there is a right to protest. Wether it's 5 people or 50 thousand, it's their right to protest against trump. Things escaladated because of both sides, blaming this on exclusively on the anti-trump protesters is pathetic.

No, it esclataed because Bernie supporters planted themselves inside the arean, determined to 'shout Trump down' when he took to the stage. When you shout someone down you aren't just protesting, you are suppressing their right to express their opinion. When you grab Trump supporting signs from Trump supporters and rip them apart, you are tramping on their right to express their support. Of course the situation escalated because of both sides, but it is obvious the anti-Trump protestors instigated it.

Was waiting for the xenophobic comment. For this I will answer: it's a shame that a brazilian must lecture you about your own country.

HAHAHA! I'm not American! For someone who throws out the 'xenophobic' insult so loosely, you really don't know what it means.

Edited 3/14/2016 02:06:39

Hmmm I did assume you were american by your statements about trump. I don't use my time to check wether people are something they pretend to be or not. Arguing that a brazilian can't possibly argue about the american politics is xenophobic lol. And also wrong, cause I'm actually french.

Full definition of some:
1) being an unknown, undetermined, or unspecified unit or thing <some person knocked>
2)a : being one, a part, or an unspecified number of something (as a class or group) named or implied <some gems are hard>
b : being of an unspecified amount or number <give me some water> <have some apples>
3): remarkable, striking <that was some party>
4): being at least one —used to indicate that a logical proposition is asserted only of a subclass or certain members of the class denoted by the term which it modifies

I think some is really more of a minority then a majority, but read this definition as you like. I don't need to have english as my first language to read a dictionary. And I speak 4 languages, forgive me if I mix them a bit.

Legalizing drugs? How about legalizing murder so that assassins would be out of jobs?

=> Ignorant statement

Mexico's drug war is Mexico's problem. Trump proposes a wall and stricter border control to stem the inflow of drugs into America, he doesn't propose intervening in Mexico war against drug cartels.

=> It won't fix the drugs problem in america. In fact it might solve mexico's problem to some extent. The reality is that as much as there's demand, there's supply. Conservatives brag about knowing well economics, and yet they fail to recognize that it's impossible to eliminate drugs because of the most important law of the economy.

Of course the situation escalated because of both sides, but it is obvious the anti-Trump protestors instigated it.

Not sure if it was caused by both sides then huh? If the situation escalated because of both sides it's because both contributed for it to begin in the first place.

'Some' implies a plurality, it doesn't imply a majority at all. 'Some' implies a plurality, it doesn't imply a majority at all.

It definitely does not implify that, in this context. He said Mexicans are killers, and some are good. Now, if he just had left it had Mexicans are killers and rapists, I would have defended him for the same grounds, but he clearly is implifying that most of them are.

Legalizing drugs? How about legalizing murder so that assassins would be out of jobs?

Again with your one liners that you hate. Ok, legalising drugs doesn't legalise forcefully inconveniencing anyone. Legalising murder very much does.

Mexico's drug war is Mexico's problem.

I agree, America should get out of Mexico, and stop the war on drugs.

Trump proposes a wall and stricter border control to stem the inflow of drugs into America, he doesn't propose intervening in Mexico war against drug cartels.

You know, there's a grounds why the American government would do such a stupid thing. They profit, too, from the drug trade. It's not as if tunnels don't work (they do), or boats around. Heck, might even grow cocaine addiction since the Colombian sea trade grows bigger as a proportion.

When you shout someone down you aren't just protesting, you are suppressing their right to express their opinion.

Shut up.

If I tell you this, am I triggering you? Am I taking away your right of speech? Should we illegalise this word? Maybe we will ban saying "shut up", too, and instead, everyone, like when Poland invaded Czechslovakia, will say the fine for saying it, instead: "4 Zloty.". Frankly, you're as bad as some of these low socialists. "Oh my gosh, saying anything against my opinion triggers me and needs to be stopped."

When you grab Trump supporting signs from Trump supporters and rip them apart, you are tramping on their right to express their support.

The right is that you aren't killed or in any way other way silenced (unable to spread your word). That's clearly not what's happening here.

I'm not American! For someone who throws out the 'xenophobic' insult so loosely, you really don't know what it means.

Americans and Aoterkans, both racist against a same foe.

If you just legalized drugs all of the mexican drug cartels would need to find other occupations no?

Okay let's say we

1) Legalize or decriminalize all drugs.

Also let's assume that Bernie Sanders gets his wish and

2) Health care is made single-payer and universal

If individuals use

3) Dangerous drugs and get into serious medical situations

Then wouldn't American taxpayers in effect and indirectly be

4) Subsidizing drug use by subsidizing the medical treatment of drug users

1) Legalize or decriminalize all drugs.

Also let's assume that Bernie Sanders gets his wish and

2) Health care is made single-payer and universal

If individuals use

3) Dangerous drugs and get into serious medical situations

Then wouldn't American taxpayers in effect and indirectly be

4) Subsidizing drug use by subsidizing the medical treatment of drug users

The wrong link is made in step 3. Drug usage lowers with legalisation 9 times of 10.

But you still admit taxpayers would be subsidizing those using drugs? Even if its a lower number they would still be subsidizing them.

That type of policy doesn't foster personal responsibility, and would seem to counteract the purpose of legalization no? If people knew they could use a drug without getting punished and without getting into medical trouble then they would probably do it more often and with riskier drugs.

Although the drug war doesn't work, so some middle ground needs to be found. But honestly that would be a poor government policy if that scenario worked out.

Edited 3/14/2016 02:31:10

@Jai
You would pay for the medical infrastucture with the tax you get from the drug. The drug would be regulated, better quality, safer environment for usage. And you would save the tremendous amount of money spent on the drug war, that not only created the violence related to drug, but also have ruined a lot of young people's lives that got sent to prison because they have used drug.

Please watch these 2 short videos related to drug and addiction. Really insightful

Addiction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg

Why The War on Drugs Is a Huge Failure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJUXLqNHCaI

No way the common citizen should pay medical bills of drug users. That's why you put huge taxes on drugs. Just like in cigarretes in many countries. Make the users pay for their threatments.

Plus, with drugs of better quality, the side effects of longterm use will lower, and so will the medical expenses required to help an addicted.

If people knew they could use a drug without getting punished and without getting into medical trouble then they would probably do it more often and with riskier drugs.

I disagree. When the prohibition in the US was stoped, alcohol become less dangerous as it was strongly regulated. Plus, people will still die out of drug use, just like people die of alcohol and tobacco. But when it's legal, less people die from it, and less people tend to use them as well.

Edited 3/14/2016 02:37:21

we have to stop treating addict like criminal and start treating the real problem: addiction

^+1

Trying to cut demand and supply for drugs through incarceration will never solve the problem.

Edited 3/14/2016 02:38:52

You would pay for the medical infrastucture with the tax you get from the drug.

I'm not sure if the taxes from the drug alone could pay for the entire medical infrastructure.

You see if we don't implement a universal single-payer healthcare system like Bernie wants, then I'm all for ending the drug war and decriminalization of drugs because 1) I wouldn't be subsidizing it as a taxpayer 2) I wouldn't be affected because I'm pretty isolated from drug crime and its effects and 3) It would be taxed and hopefully overall drug use would go down.

The thing is, even within a single-payer healthcare system, you wouldn't pay for drug users problems.

Taxing it at 100-200 percent would make A LOOOT OF MONEY. Drugs already makes a huge part of the economy and they are expensive. With legalization, prices will fall, in order not to stimulate drug usage through that price falling, you just cover the difference with taxes. It's probable that it will give a surplus to the system, and not the opposite.

Arguing that a brazilian can't possibly argue about the american politics is xenophobic lol

Of course its fine, I am not an American and I'm discussing American politics too. I only try to discuss policy merits, the only reason I may appear to be a Trump supporter is because he gets so much unjustified hate from people uneducated about his policies. It just appears silly to show particular preference towards a candidate when you aren't American, and thus have imperfect knowledge about the country and its interests.

=> Ignorant statement

It was an ignorant statement in a hypothetical context of course, but it was an analogy to compare how stupid it was to argue that legalising all drugs would solve the drug problem.

=> It won't fix the drugs problem in america. In fact it might solve mexico's problem to some extent. The reality is that as much as there's demand, there's supply. Conservatives brag about knowing well economics, and yet they fail to recognize that it's impossible to eliminate drugs because of the most important law of the economy.

That may well be true. But does that mean its pointless trying to fight drug production simply because there will other forms will appear in the market? Whats the point of putting criminals in jail when there will always be people violating the law everyday?

Not sure if it was caused by both sides then huh? If the situation escalated because of both sides it's because both contributed for it to begin in the first place.

No. There was a rally designed only for Donald Trump supporters. Many Donald Trump supporters turned up, many Bernie Sanders supporters showed up. You can say the Bernie Sander's supporters were there to merely protest (which I have already disagreed with), but their unwanted presence at the very least instigated the disagreement and violence. They were within their right to protest, yes, but the protest alone started the trouble.

Edited 3/14/2016 02:49:13

I'm not sure if the taxes from the drug alone could pay for the entire medical infrastructure.

You don't want to pay the medical bill of sick people with drug addictions? You are already paying the price, who do you think pays for the war on drug?

More than a trillion dollars has been spent on the war on drug since the the 70s. The US spends 50B$ a year figthing drug. 700,000 arrest have been made in the US in 2014, related to marijuana alone
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/06/opinion/branson-end-war-on-drugs/
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics

Ending the war on drug would not only save a great amount of money, it would also lower crime, lower drug related health problem, and most important of all, it would give the best possible way for addicts to treat their addiction and become productive members of society, instead of being sick in jail.

Edited 3/14/2016 03:03:25

edit: duplicate

Edited 3/14/2016 03:04:38