Sorry democrats you can't limit firearms. Carry everywhere, everyday

Republicans had 2 years to get the wall funded. You should place blame where it belongs

I blame them all, dems voted for it too, never funded it. There would be no Trump if either party had done what they promised they would do.

And how is having a reality tv star that can't keep promises fixing anything?

He is there only because the Republicans revolted against their own. The chose an outsider to send a message. The old dogs didn't listen

And that message is going to end up hurting the whole damn country.

Not as much as two groups of children that refuse to work with the other side. DC was a mess before Trump and if we the people keep electing the same self serving pricks, it will be a mess long after Trump has left office.

You can't see 45 is even more self serving. Will create just as many problems, probably more, as he solves.
Ranked choice voting system will break the 2 party stranglehold.

I don't doubt he is self serving name, a rich person that is not. He is only President though, congress creates way more problems. The ranked choice we will never agree on, it would allow a few states to out vote the rest, making elections a joke.

I don't think you understand ranked choice voting system. Has nothing to do with changing the electoral college. Maine just had an election with it.

I thought it was a popular vote thing, I guess I best look into it.

Instead of believing me or that other guy why not go look at how Maine did it. He is spreading fear because he is a scared little chicken

Read all the fine print when you do.

Australia has used it for a century.
Also known as an instant runoff.

"A candidate has to appeal to a wide swath of voters"
Parties are voted for, not candidates. The voted in party dictates which person of that party fills the seat.

"It will eliminate or greatly reduce what we have now."

With the transferring of votes, all the votes end up back at the major parties. Same problem just a different route to get there.

Maybe the same 2 parties but less radical extremes and thus a candidate that has broader support from the voting base.
I vote for candidates not parties.
Straight ticket voters are a naive bunch

"Australia has used it for a century."
They also have MANDATORY voting, and if the party you voted for does not win they can shift their votes to a different party of their choosing. Don't sing the praises too high, it still has big flaws with unforeseen consequences.

That is the main reason it works. A candidate has to appeal to a wide swath of voters. It will eliminate or greatly reduce what we have now. Which is a very polarizing system.

Um I am in the usa.

Look at the recent Maine vote.

"I vote for candidates not parties."
The Australian system you are using (as an example of what we [in the USA] should use) does not give that option, they CAN ONLY vote for a party.
So if you think "straight ticket voters are a naive bunch" imagine having not other option, because they don't.

There, deleted and reposted with a more clearly stated expression of what "your using" actually meant.

Thanks for explaining it

You may like this place....
imgflip.com/m/FirearmFriendly