Saturday, September 24, 2016

We Can't Have Both


Clinton Has 6 Point Edge In Two New National Polls


The McClatchy / Marist Poll was done between September 15th and 20th of a random national sample of 758 likely voters, and has a 3.6 point margin of error.


The AP-GfK Poll was done between September 15th and 19th of a random national sample of 1,251 likely voters, and has a margin of error of 2.5 points.

LWB (Living While Black)

Political Cartoon is by Clay Bennett in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

Clinton Has 9-10 Point Lead In Texas' Largest County


Harris County, the county that contains Houston, is the Texas county with the largest population -- more than 16% of the population in the whole state. It matters what happens in Houston and the other large cities in the state, because that's where a majority of the population live. And if Houston is any indicator, then Texas might really be turning purple this year.

As the chart above shows, Hillary Clinton has a 10 point lead over Donald Trump among Harris county registered voters, and a 9 point lead with likely voters. President Obama carried Harris county in 2008 and 2012, but not by a margin even close to this. In 2008, Obama's margin over McCain was only 1.63 points (50.45% to 48.82%). In 2012, Obama's margin over Romney was even smaller -- a mere 0.08 points (49.39% to 49.31%). This huge margin for Clinton in Harris county could mean the race is much closer statewide than in the last few elections.

The chart above was made from the results in a new University of Houston Hobby School of Public Affairs Poll -- done between September 1st and 20th of a random sample of 550 Harris county registered voters, and has a margin of error of 4 points.

Blowing Up The Deficit

Political Cartoon is by Scott Santis in the Chicago Tribune.

Many Believe Trump Would Misuse Presidential Power

(The caricature of Donald Trump above is by DonkeyHotey.)

It seems that a significant percentage of Americans believe Donald Trump would abuse his presidential powers if elected. And it's not just Democrats. Many Independents and Republicans also believe that.

The answers posted below are from a Lincoln Leadership Initiative / SurveyMonkey Poll that was done between September 16th and 21st of a random national sample of 1,051 registered voters, with a 4 point margin of error.

Among the survey findings, respondents said if Trump is elected president there would be a:

  • 46 percent chance that Trump would authorize the use of a nuclear device against ISIS or another foreign enemy;
  • 54 percent chance the U.S. government would default on its debt;
  • 65 percent chance Trump would use the powers of his office against a political opponent;
  • 54 percent chance Trump would create a database to track all Muslims in the U.S.;
  • 53 percent chance Trump would order the military to target the families of terrorists;
  • 44 percent chance Trump would authorize internment camps for illegal immigrants; and
  • 65 percent chance there would be race riots in major U.S. cities.

Trump supporters shared many of those same concerns, with his supporters predicting a:

  • 22 percent chance that Trump would authorize the use of a nuclear weapon;
  • 33 percent chance the U.S. government would default on its debt;
  • 32 percent chance Trump would use the powers of his office against a political opponent;
  • 48 percent chance Trump would create a database to track all Muslims in the U.S.;
  • 29 percent chance Trump would order the military to target the families of terrorists;
  • 32 percent chance Trump would authorize internment camps for illegal immigrants; and
  • 36 percent chance there would be race riots in major U.S. cities.

Skittles

Political Cartoon is by Joe Heller at gocomics.com.

Police Violence In The U.S. Is An Institutional Problem

(Cartoon image above is by Mike Luckovich in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.)

I used to believe that police violence in this country was because of a few "bad apples". I no longer believe that. It's happening too often, and it's happening to Blacks in a ratio far higher than it happens to Whites. It is a problem that can only be defined as an institutional racial problem. Adding to this belief is the fact that when unarmed Blacks are shot, fellow officers, police leadership, and political officials are quick to defend the "bad apples". Shouldn't they be happy to get rid of them instead of defend them? That defense is just part of the institutional problem.

A friend of mine has blogged the following at Badtux, the Snarky Penguin. I agree with what he has written:

One common meme that goes around left-wing sites when cops shoot black men is that this is because there’s a lot of racist white supremacist cops. Or it’s because of widespread steroid use in police forces that result in a lot of cops in near-permanent “roid rage”.
People: Unless you think the tiny female cop who shot Terence Crutcher was on steroids, and you think the black cop who shot Keith Lamont Scott was racist, it’s pretty clear that the problem is institutional, not individual. These aren’t the theoretical “few bad apples” that the white supremacist endorsing Fraternal Order of Police is always talking about to excuse cops who do bad things. We have an institutional problem with how policing is currently organized and functions in many cities. We have a problem with how police are trained, how they are directed, and how their internal sociology works to propagate and enforce standards of (mis) behavior. This isn’t a steroid problem — there are undoubtedly cops that are on steroids, but little lady cops aren’t among their number. This isn’t a white supremacist problem — unless you think the a black cop is a white supremacist. This is something deeper, an institutional rot in the very profession that is now becoming obvious as time goes on. 
Regarding the riots in Charlotte, North Carolina, I’ll leave you with this:
“I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.” — Martin Luther King, Jr. (1967)
The same remains true today.

In A Trump Presidency

Political Cartoon is by Jen Sorensen at jensorensen.com.

Clinton Foundation


Friday, September 23, 2016

GOP Gloats Over Failure


Trump's "Jobs" Program Just A Huge Giveaway To The Rich

(This cartoon image is by Drew Sheneman in the New Jersey Star-Ledger.)

Throughout the general presidential campaign, Donald Trump has repeated many times that he will create massive amounts of new jobs. But will he be able to do that? Will his policy create any new jobs at all?

The centerpiece of his "jobs" program is his tax proposal. He wants to lower the income tax paid by corporations from the current 39.6% to only 15%. And he wants to allow them to bring home the massive amounts of money they are hiding overseas, and have it taxed at only 10%. He also wants to cut the top tax rate for the rich from 39.6% to 33% (a whopping 17% tax cut).

His thesis is that corporations would use the money they save in taxes (and admittedly, it would be a massive cut in taxes for them) to create new jobs in the United States. Does that sound familiar? It should. It's just the old failed GOP "trickle-down" economic policy -- the idea that if we just give the rich and the corporations more money they will eventually share some of it with the general public.

It's a ludicrous idea that didn't work in the Bush administration (which created a record low in new jobs) and it won't work now. It won't work because the tax rate has nothing to do with job creation. Cutting taxes for the rich and corporations will just fatten their bank accounts and nothing else -- just like it has done in the past.

Do you doubt that? Just consider this -- one of our greatest economic booms (which created massive amounts of new jobs) was in the 1950s, when the top tax rate was 90%. And one of the poorest economic times (and worst job creation) was during the Bush administration, when the top tax rate was lower than at any other time since World War II. It's just a fact that lowering taxes does not create jobs and raising taxes does not cost jobs.

There is only one thing that creates jobs in a capitalist economy like ours -- an increase in the demand for goods/services. Consider job creation from a business standpoint. If you hire too many workers, then you just waste money that could have been profit for yourself -- and if you hire too few workers, then you hurt the business' ability to produce goods, get them to market, and service your customers -- which will drive your customers to a competitor with the correct number of employees.

That means a business can only justify hiring more workers when an increase in demand makes it feasible, regardless of whether your taxes go up or down. So what can increase demand? Demand is increased when the masses have more money to spend. Giving the rich more money won't increase demand -- because there aren't enough of them to stimulate demand and they already have the money to buy whatever they want. Demand is increased when the poor, the working class, and the middle class have more money to spend (the bottom 80% to 90% of the population).

Trump's tax plan would also have a negative effect on the deficit and the national debt. His own campaign admits that it would decrease federal revenue by a trillion dollars over a decade. Economists more correctly put the figure at between $3.5 to $10 trillion over a decade.

How would he pay for that? He says he would cut a trillion dollars out of the budget, but would not touch the Military budget (which he wants to increase), Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid (although he later told Rep. Ryan that he would cut S.S.). It makes sense not to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Social Security is not paid for with income taxes, and most of Medicare is not either. And Medicaid is already so low-paying that many doctors won't accept Medicaid patients. His plan to increase military spending (already about 45% of all military spending in the entire world) would increase both the deficit and the debt (beyond even the increase caused by his tax plan).

So, what would he cut? It would have to come from other budget items (education, environmental protection, welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, housing loans, veterans care, help for college students, aid to farmers, law enforcement, public health, national parks and landmarks upkeep, infrastructure repair, etc.) -- the programs that actually help Americans, and which have already been cut to the bone by the austerity Republicans have imposed.

Trump also says some of the tax cuts would be offset by a huge growth in the economy. That has to be a joke, because he will be taking money out of the economy through his massive trillion dollar cuts to government programs -- a move that will decrease demand and actually hurt economic growth.Giving more to the rich and corporations won't stimulate economic growth. That can only be done by increasing demand (which would require giving the masses more money to spend -- not the rich).

Economic growth could be stimulated by raising the minimum wage, adequately funding government programs that help people, and strengthening labor unions -- but those are all ideas that Trump opposes.

In short, Trump really doesn't have a jobs plan. He just has a plan to give more to the rich and corporations, while taking more away from the poor, the working class, and the middle class. His plan would be economically disastrous for this country.

Debate Prep

Political Cartoon is by Mike Keefe in the Colorado Independent.

About 3 Out Of 4 Will "Probably" Watch Presidential Debate


I'm not sure I believe this poll. It is the Morning Consult Poll -- done on September 15th and 16th of a random national sample of 1,861 registered voters, with a margin of error of 1 point. According to the poll, about 73% say they are either very or somewhat likely to watch the first presidential debate on September 26th between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. About 25% say they won't watch, and 3% are unsure.

There are approximately 146.3 million registered voters in the United States (and in 2012 only 57.5% bothered to vote). About 73% of them would be 106.7 million voters. Even 44% (which would be 64.3 million) would be far more than the number who watched in 2000 (47 million) or 2008 (52 million). Is the interest in this race more than in either 2000 or 2008? Maybe, but I'll have to see the numbers to believe it.

I also have my doubts as to how much effect the debate will have on the election. Media pundits seem to think the debates could be a critical factor in who wins the presidency. Maybe they are right, but it seems to me that this is a weird race -- one where most actual voters have already made up their minds how they will vote. Most of those who watch will be doing so to cheer on their candidate -- not to make up their mind about who to vote for.

But I'm an old skeptic. What do you think? Will 64 to 106 million registered voters watch the debate? Will the debate decide our next president?

Unlikely Clinton Voter

Political Cartoon is by Dave Granlund at davegranlund.com.

New Poll Gives Clinton A Seven Point Edge Over Trump


This chart shows the results of a new Pew Research Center survey on the presidential race. It was done between August 16th and September 12th of a random national sample of 3,941 registered voters, and has a margin of error of 2.6 points.

Wrong Guys ?

Political Cartoon is by Andy Marlette in the Pensacola News-Journal.

The Green Party Is Not An Option - It's A Dysfunctional Joke

(This cartoon image was found at the website jjmccullough.com.)

A few of Bernie Sanders supporters are saying they will vote for the Green Party's presidential candidate this year. To me, that's a combination of sour grapes and a wasted vote. It may make them feel superior, but it'll just help Donald Trump (who is the opposite of everything Danders stands for) when the Democratic Party (and its candidate) is more progressive than it has been in decades.

The following article was written by Joshua Holland for The Nation. As someone who has voted for Green Party candidates in the past, I can't argue with a thing he has written. He writes:

If the last three presidential elections are any guide, 75 to 90 percent of those who say that they’re planning to vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein in November won’t follow through. Yes, there are some dedicated Green voters, but much of the party’s support is an expression of contempt for the Democrats that evaporates in the voting booth. I’m a registered independent and a supporter of the Working Families Party, and my disdain for the Greens springs from my own experience with the party. I agree with much of the Greens’ platform, but when I went to Green Party meetings, I found a wildly disorganized, mostly white group that was riven with infighting, strategically inept, and organized around a factually flawed analysis of American politics. There are effective Green parties in Europe, but ours is a hot mess. And while the Greens’ bold ideas are attractive, what’s the point of wasting one’s time and energy on such a dysfunctional enterprise? . . .
The Green Party’s primary pitch to voters on the left is that there still isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties. When Ralph Nader made that claim in 2000, there was a kernel of truth to it. Today, that claim requires a great deal of dishonesty to make. By every measure, Democrats and Republicans have moved toward their respective ideological poles since the 1990s. According to Pew Research, since 2011, the most conservative Democrat on Capitol Hill has still been more liberal than the most liberal Republican, based on their aggregate voting records. It’s also true of the Democratic base—according to Pew, the share of Democrats who hold “mostly or consistently liberal” views almost doubled between 1994 and 2014. And it’s true of the 2016 party platform, which Bernie Sanders, among others, hailed as the most progressive in the party’s history. Today’s low-information voter is as likely to be aware of the major-party candidates’ differences as a highly engaged voter was in the mid-1970s.
You might notice that Greens tend to steer the conversation away from the myriad issues—health care, education, abortion, gun control, climate change, and on and on—where the Democrats and Republicans are diametrically opposed, and toward foreign policy and national security, where there really is significant overlap between the major parties’ policies. I agree with the Greens on many of those issues. But they’re not sufficient to substantiate the claim that there’s no difference between the Democrats and Republicans at all.
And the Greens’ critique of the Democrats is often unmoored from reality. Stein goes beyond (rightly) criticizing the Obama administration’s strategy in the aftermath of the 2009 coup in Honduras by charging that then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave it “a thumbs-up.” (Not only did the US oppose the coup, American embassy personnel tried to talk Honduran military officials out of it.) During her 2012 campaign, Stein consistently claimed that the 2009 stimulus plan “was mostly tax breaks for the wealthy.” The truth is that tax breaks accounted for 38 percent of the plan, a majority of them targeted toward low- and middle-income households. That’s not criticism from the left; it’s a dishonest, scorched-earth campaign against the only party that can keep Republicans out of the White House. (And if you think that Stein wouldn’t have attacked Bernie Sanders with the same vigor if he were the nominee, then it’s a safe bet you’ve never attended a Green Party meeting. Remember that the Greens ran candidates against Ralph Nader in both 2004 and ’08.)
Two disastrous wars and a few Wall Street–precipitated recessions have helped push the Democratic Party leftward. Demographic changes in the electorate have made it less reliant on courting white swing voters. But the shift in the party was in large part a result of tireless work by the Democrats’ own base, passionate progressives who pushed the party to change.
Many Greens think that their vote isn’t wasted because it sends a powerful “message” to Washington. But why would anyone in power pay attention to the 0.36 percent of the popular vote that Jill Stein won in 2012, when 42 percent of eligible voters just stayed home? Political parties are merely vessels. The Green Party provides a forum to demonstrate ideological purity and contempt for “the system.” But the Democratic Party is a center of real power in this country. For all its flaws, and for all the work still to be done, it offers a viable means of advancing progressive goals. One can’t say the same of the perpetually dysfunctional and often self-marginalizing Greens.

Insert Ballot

Political Cartoon is by Stuart Carlson at carlsontoons.com.

Free Stuff (For The Rich)


Thursday, September 22, 2016

Rights Are For Everyone


New WSJ/NBC Poll Has Clinton With A 5 To 6 Point Lead



These charts reflect the results of a new Wall Street Journal / NBC News Poll -- done between September 16th and 19th of a random national sample of 1,000 registered voters (including 922 likely voters). The margin of error is 3.23 points for likely voters and 3.1 for registered voters.

Reform Needed

Political Cartoon is by Pat Bagley in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Congress Is The Least Trusted Branch Of U.S. Government




The job approval rating for Congress has risen slightly, and now rests at 20%. That's the first time it has reached the 20% level in over a year -- and hasn't been above 20% in nearly four years. The American public is still very unhappy with Congress.

That abysmal job approval rating also results in Congress being the least trusted branch of the United States government. Only 35% of Americans say they trust Congress, while majorities say they trust the executive branch (51%) and the judicial branch (61%).

We can get a good clue as to why Congress is viewed so poorly by Americans. A majority of Americans (53%) say they want government officials to compromise for the good of the country, while only 21% want officials to stick to their beliefs regardless of whether anything gets accomplished or not.

Americans correctly see a majority of congressional officials as being more invested in political ideology than in compromising to solve the country's problems, and they don't like it.

These charts are from a recent Gallup Poll -- done between September 7th and 11th of a random national sample of 1,020 voters, with a 4 point margin of error.

Defamation

Political Cartoon is by Clay Jones at claytoonz.com.

Wealthier Voters Prefer Clinton Over Trump This Year


These charts are from a new Bloomberg Politics Purple Insights Poll. The survey was done between September 16th and 19th of a national sample of 600 voters making $100,000 a year or more. The survey has a margin of error of 4 points.

The poll shows Hillary Clinton has a four point lead over Donald Trump among wealthy voters -- a group that normally votes for Republican presidential candidates, and who backed Romney over Obama by 10 points in the 2012 election.

That's pretty amazing, especially considering that this group thinks Trump would have a more positive effect on their own financial prospects (see bottom chart). That means a sizable chunk of these voters are so afraid of a Trump presidency that they are willing to vote against their own financial interests.


Charity ?

Political Cartoon is by Mike Luckovich in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Democrats Need To Put More Emphasis On Senate Races


The chart above shows the poll averages (from RealClearPolitics) in 12 states with a Republican senator up for re-election this year. The Democrats need to take five of these seats to once again control the U.S. Senate.

Currently, Democrats have a significant lead in two of those races -- Wisconsin and Illinois. They are close in four other states, with some polls showing them leading and some showing them behind -- Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Nevada. The other six races seem to be favoring Republicans rather significantly right now --Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Georgia, Kansas, and Arkansas.

If Hillary Clinton is elected, and I think she will be, she is going to need the Senate to be controlled by Democrats. Without that, she won't be able to do much. The Republicans will just do four years of obstructing anything she tries to do (just like they have done for the last few years to President Obama).

It seems obvious to me that the Democrats need to put more emphasis on many of these Senate seats.

Blown A Gasket

Political Cartoon is by Jim Morin in The Miami Herald.

Fiscal Responsibility


Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Firsts


Why Polls Can Differ - Sometimes Significantly




Did you ever wonder why polls taken at the same general time can differ -- sometimes significantly. The general answer is a difference in samples. One poll's sample might be better than another. But while that can be true, it is a little more complicated than that.

Yesterday, I showed you a New York Times / Siena College Poll. That poll was done of Florida voters, and showed Hillary Clinton clinging to a slim 1 point lead there. But in addition to publishing their poll, the New York Times did a very interesting thing -- they gave all the raw data of their survey to four other distinguished pollsters, and asked them what that data showed.

Guess what happened. Including their own poll, they came up with five different results -- ranging from a Clinton lead of four points to a Trump lead of 1 point (see the top chart). How can that happen with all five using the same raw data sample?

The answer lies in how they each treat that same raw data. All polls question many more people than they actually report. That's so they hopefully can get an accurate picture of how the general population is thinking. They weight the poll according to percentages of the population -- by trying to narrow the poll to the correct percentage of racial groups, age groups, etc.

And they might not even agree on those percentages. Note the second chart. The five polls all had differing percentages just of the racial groups. You can expect the same with age and other groups.

And it doesn't stop there. Then then try to narrow the poll down to "likely voters", and they differ is how to do that (see the bottom chart). Some use the respondent's self-reporting on whether he/she will vote, while others use the voting history of the area being polled. Then they might differ on how to weight those likely voters -- whether to use a traditional method, or devise a model of their own. And finally, they might differ on whether to use as a reference the census numbers or the registered voter numbers.

As you can see, a poll is much more complicated than just calling people and asking them questions, and decisions must be made at each step in the process.

I shoed the the above steps just to remind you that polling is not an exact science. It is based on scientific principals, but a bad decision at any point can nullify that science. The truth is that a poll is an educated guess. It can be a very good guess, but also can be a very bad guess. It depends on the skill and honesty of those doing the poll.

Anyone reading this blog regularly will know that I have a weakness for polls. I will continue to bring you the results of many polls, because I do believe they can give us a vague picture of what is happening in an electoral race -- especially when averaged together. But I caution you -- never take any poll as the absolute final truth.

Political Dating Game

Political Cartoon is by Chris Britt at gocomics.com.

Clinton Extends Her Lead In A New National Poll


This chart shows the results of a new NBC News Poll -- done between September 12th and 18th of a national sample of 14,326 registered voters (with a sample of 13,320 likely voters included). The margin of error for both is 1.2 points because of the large samples.

It shows Hillary Clinton with a five point lead over Donald Trump among both registered and likely voters (45% to 40%).

Bomb Squad

Political Cartoon is by Clay Bennett in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

Trump Has Only A Three Point Lead In Georgia


This chart reflects the electoral situation in the state of Georgia according to a new Monmouth University Poll -- done between September 15th and 18th of a random sample of 401 likely Georgia voters, with a margin of error of 4.9 points. While I think Georgia, normally a very red state, will likely go for Donald Trump, it is no longer a "safe" state for him. Hillary Clinton now has a slim chance to win Georgia.

How To Hurt The U.S.

Political Cartoon is by Mike Luckovich in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Americans Like The Mixing Of Cultures In Our "Melting Pot"


It is best if people mix and match their culture, picking up new things that they like and discarding old traditions which they don’t.




Thinking about the cultural traditions in your family, are they all from one country, religion or culture, or have you created your own mix of traditions from various sources?



These charts were made from a new YouGov Poll -- done on September 14th and 15th of a random national sample of 1000 adults U.S. citizens, and has a margin of error of about 4.8 points.

Donald Trump, and his teabagger followers have a disdain for immigrants. They don't want the United States to change, and they know that immigrants bring new ideas and different cultures. They want the old white country with mainly European traditions. Fortunately, they are a minority.

As the charts above show, most American disagree with them. About two-thirds (67%) of the general public says it is best if people mix and match their culture, picking up new things they like and discarding old traditions they don't like.

And they practice what they preach -- with nearly the same percentage (65%) saying their own families have created a mix of traditions from various sources.

I've heard some say that the old idea of the United States being a "melting pot" is wrong -- that we are more like a stew, with many ingredients working together but maintaining their own identity. I think this survey shows that both ideas may be correct. 

Americans like to maintain their own identity, but they also don't mind accepting and using the culture of other peoples. That sounds very appropriate for a nation of immigrants -- and like it or not, that's what we are.

Journalism ?

Political Cartoon is by Chris Britt at gocomics.com.

Undeserving


Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Think


Donald Trump's HUUUGE Lie About Hillary Clinton And Guns

"My opponent wants to essentially abolish the Second Amendment." 

Those are the words of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, and he has said that repeatedly throughout his campaign. It is a part of his overall fear campaign -- this time the fear of some gun owners that the government will take away their guns.

There's one problem with Trump's claim though -- it is a BIG FAT LIE! Hillary Clinton has NEVER stated any desire to eliminate the Second Amendment, or to take guns away from law-abiding American citizens. Here is what she said during one of the Democratic presidential debates:

"I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this."

And here, from her own website, is what she does want to do about the gun violence in this country:

  • Expand background checks to more gun sales—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.”
  • Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.
  • Keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill by supporting laws that stop domestic abusers from buying and owning guns, making it a federal crime for someone to intentionally buy a gun for a person prohibited from owning one, and closing the loopholes that allow people suffering from severe mental illness to purchase and own guns. She will also support work to keep military-style weapons off our streets.
Those are all common sense solutions -- and none of them would violate the Constitution's Second Amendment. They also would not affect any honest and law-abiding citizen's right to purchase or own a firearm.

This claim of Trump's, like many of his other claims, is not true. That shouldn't surprise us, since he has no truth to campaign on -- just lies and generalities, all based of an attempt to scare people into voting for him. I'm not a fan of Republicans, but I don't ever remember a Republicans presidential candidate that based his campaign on this many obvious and blatant lies.

(The caricature above of Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)