Hillary Clinton for President

Gun Violence Background Checks - Thank you for that clarification, however, I have not seen anything about how Hillary will fix the broken background check system (I read your sources on guns and her campaign website as well). Her campaign website (that you cited earlier) states that she will only "expand background checks to more gun shows - including by closing the gun show and internet sales loopholes - and strengthen the background check system by getting rid of the so-called 'Charleston Loophole. '" [1] It's very important how she phrases this, because what she really means by it is that she will close the 'gun show loophole' in gun shows and internet sales, and she will get rid of the Charleston loophole. The Charleston loophole basically means that anyone (including dangerous felons) can purchase a gun without a background check if the FBI does not complete the background check in three days. [2] Other than ending the Charleston loophole, Hillary doesn't confirm that she will fix the system as a whole or how she would do it. Obtaining a Firearm - If a criminal wants something illegal, a piece of paper saying they can't have it won't stop them. When alcohol was banned back in the Prohibition, black markets opened and people managed to buy alcohol illegally. Today, with the War on Drugs, black markets have opened to sell illegal drugs. Of course these are examples of full-on bans, but what they tell us is that if we try to take something away from criminals, they'll find a way to get it. In the case of guns, you did not refute my earlier claim that some ways criminals can attain guns are through buyers with clean records, theft, or black markets (whether physical or online). It would be very difficult for the government to crack down on these attempts, probably why Hillary only mentioned one of them - criminals attaining guns through buyers with clean records. That leaves out theft and black markets. [1] Australia - I noticed we're not on the same page about the Australian buyback program. According to your first source, Hillary said the program was "worth looking at". An 'American buyback program', if implemented, would apply to all gun owners (not just those with psychological issues even if it is non-threatening). But back to the Australian buyback program - did it work? Not really. According to a 2007 report, the gun-homicide rate in Australia had been steadily decreasing 15 years before the massacre that spawned the buyback program. The report concluded that the buyback program did not have a "significant long-tern effect on the Australian homicide rate". [3] A second source confirms this, stating that the homicide rate returned to normal and is currently decreasing - although it says that this decrease is only temporary and the homicide rate will continue to fluctuate as "exhibited in other nations". [4] You also used Australia as an example the less guns, less crime idea, however, I would say the sources I provided say otherwise - hence the correlation of guns and murder which you claimed I did not refute. Foreign Policy The point I was attempting to make was that Hillary changes her stances to match that of the majority. I have always been in favor of diplomacy before intervention - it costs less, it saves lives, it creates peaceful solutions. I do not trust Hillary to uphold diplomacy when she voted in favor of the Iraq war as Senator and when she intervened in Libya as Secretary of State and got many people unnecessarily killed in both countries. I like that Hillary shifted towards diplomacy in recent years, although I'm not ready (and I may never be ready) to trust her in charge of our country's foreign affairs considering her track record of advocating for violence and military intervention. So no, although I agree with her current stance, I do not think she should be President because of it until the American people and I can trust her. Tax Reform Am I against tax breaks for the 'ultra-rich'? Yes; it is unfair to middle class and low-income taxpayers. Do I think monopolizing current fiscal empires is bad? No; when the government sued John Rockefeller to stop his monopoly on oil, he defended his company by bringing up how his company created jobs, helped American families, and brought in money from exports. Making a monopoly takes a chaotic market and turns it into an industry. Think along the lines of supermarkets. Before supermarkets, there were individuals stores for produce, meat, and baked good. The creation of the supermarket brought all of them together and brought order. It created jobs and helped American families. I would consider creating monopolies a form of earning money. Conclusion Guns - I take back what I said earlier about there not being any mass shootings in 20+ years as my opponent falsely claimed. There actually were mass shootings after the buyback program. There was a series of mass shootings from 1992-1999, one in 2000, one in 2002, two in 2009, two in 2011, and four in 2014. [5] It would appear mass shootings are actually increasing. My opponent also used Australia as an example that more guns equals more crime. I proved that to be incorrect with a 2007 report that stated that the buyback program had no significant long-term effect [3] and a second source that claimed that while the homicide rate is currently decreasing, it was steadily decreasing before the gun ban and this decline is part of an expected fluctuation. Foreign Policy - What I'm getting at is that it's difficult to trust someone that promises diplomacy now when only a few years ago, she voted in favor of the Iraq war and got us involved in Libya. Because of her, millions of lives have been lost in the Middle East and North Africa. And then she called Libya her greatest accomplishment - President Obama calls it his greatest failure. It is unreasonable to forgive and forget just because she changed her mind (like being in favor of keeping Assad in power), and I'll add that she only changed her mind when her view became unpopular - just as she did on issues like LGBT rights, the Keystone Pipeline, NAFTA, illegal immigration, etc. . [6] So yes, I am 100% for diplomacy, but we're talking to a candidate who, first of all, has a track record that completely opposes diplomacy, and second, has changed her mind repeatedly when her views became unpopular - which would make it seem like she is doing it to remain popular with the American people. Furthermore, you said that "it is better she realized it was wrong now than never". If that's the case, then by that logic, she was wrong on LGBT rights, the Keystone Pipeline, NAFTA, illegal immigration, and many more issues. I don't think someone who always gets it wrong (again, by that logic) is fit to be our President. Taxes - Yes, I support a progressive tax system in moderation, where there is a limit on how much one can be taxed. Hillary, as far as I know, has never advocated for a limit on taxation. As far as your argument on 'oligarchical monopolies', I do not see an issue. You call it monopoly - I call it enterprise. SOURCES [1] . https://www.hillaryclinton.com... [2] . https://www.hillaryclinton.com... [3] . http://www.nationalreview.com... [4] . http://www.mintpressnews.com... [5] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [6] . https://www.rt.com...