Donald Trump: a progressive's president

[Nosmo King]

Does infrastructure promote the general welfare?

The "General Welfare" clause applies to the 18 enumerated powers of the federal government only. Otherwise, the federal government would literally have unlimited power. All they would need to do is deem something as "promoting the general welfare" and they could proceed. They could say it "promotes the general welfare" to eliminate free speech and there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it. They could say it "promotes the general welfare" to execute people named Nosmo King on message boards and there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it. You need to read and understand the U.S. Constitution - not just parrot progressive propaganda that you've heard. Here is Thomas Jefferson himself explaining it:

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

What would you have? No paved roads, rum used as an anesthetic and Negroes counted as 3/8 a person? If this nation is great, it's due to our system of transportation and our system of justice.

I would have constitutional government - where the local municipality pays for their own roads and bridges and the state pays for it's own state highways. I said that clearly already. Are you really this stupid or are you just playing stupid?

Could local municipalities in the rural Tennessee Valley pay to electrify their region? What do you know of highway design and engineering? Could a highway be built in Florida with the same specifications as a highway built in Pennsylvania, or Colorado? Isn't there something to be said for a national government that sees infrastructure as a national need? A need in regions too poor or too inaccessible to pay for interstate highway quality roads?

If we held to your narrow vision, this nation would still be thirteen struggling states huddled on the eastern seaboard. The Louisiana Purchase would be unconstitutional in your antiquated world.

 

[Preacher]

The American nations infrastructure has many problems, including many bridges that are crumbling. Why you think this rebuilding infrastructure project is a bad idea I don't know.

1. We are $20 trillion in debt thanks to progressives and their spend and spend and spend some more idiocy. This "infrastructure" nonsense is just another example of that idiotic policy.

2. It is unconstitutional. It is not the federal government's job to pay for a bridge in Pittsburgh. It's the people of Pittsburgh's job to pay for the bridge in Pittsburgh. Why in the hell should I pay for a road in Corvallis, Oregon?!? I've never even been to Oregon. I don't drive on their roads. Why should I be taxed for them?

3. The last thing we need is more government-funded jobs. Government doesn't create wealth - it wastes it. We need to cut government and expand the private sector.

Our taxes are used so yea its just fine for feds to use it to pay for upkeep and replacing infrastructure

So you enjoy bridges collapsing,roads destroying cars and overall costing MORE in the long run to upkeep than to simply replace. It also provides jobs AND like in our town here replacing an old bridge and expanding our airport runway and fixing some roads it brings in MORE companies here which improves the economy. You extremists lost! The teapers and libertardians and in general hands off muh money except for war crowd on the right and the communists,socialists and cultural marxists on the left LOST! Trump is a populist I suggest you read up on it and what it means.

Trump is a "populist". He's so "populist" he lost the popular vote by millions. Moron.

Here's the thing my special little simpleton - nobody gives a shit what you or Donald Trump thinks. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It trumps you. It trumps Trump. Try reading it sometime, stupid.

1. We are $20 trillion in debt thanks to progressives and their spend and spend and spend some more idiocy. This "infrastructure" nonsense is just another example of that idiotic policy.

2. It is unconstitutional. It is not the federal government's job to pay for a bridge in Pittsburgh. It's the people of Pittsburgh's job to pay for the bridge in Pittsburgh. Why in the hell should I pay for a road in Corvallis, Oregon?!? I've never even been to Oregon. I don't drive on their roads. Why should I be taxed for them?

3. The last thing we need is more government-funded jobs. Government doesn't create wealth - it wastes it. We need to cut government and expand the private sector.

Thanks for proving you have absolutely no clue what populism is. You want less government then move to somewhere with no or weak government like somalia or iraq. Better yet give up your us vitizens9 and leave the country if its offensive to you to have your tax dollars spend wisely for the betterment of the entire country

 

[P@triot]

Our taxes are used so yea its just fine for feds to use it to pay for upkeep and replacing infrastructure

That's not how it works O' ignorant one. Tax dollars cannot legally go to anything. The U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and state & local "infrastructure" is not one of those 18 enumerated powers.

I'm sorry you're so ignorant of your own government and the U.S. Constitution but you're simply wrong, snowflake.

 

[P@triot]

Thanks for proving you have absolutely no clue what populism is. You want less government then move to somewhere with no or weak government like somalia or iraq. Better yet give up your us vitizens9 and leave the country if its offensive to you to have your tax dollars spend wisely for the betterment of the entire country

Thanks for proving you have absolutely no clue what the U.S. Constitution says or how your own government functions - snowflake.

Here's the deal - what you desire is illegal. So literally nobody gives a shit what you want. And even if they did, it wouldn't matter anyway because.....it's illegal! So since you're the one who doesn't like how the U.S. legally functions - pack your bags snowflake. Uh buh-bye!

 

[P@triot]

Could local municipalities in the rural Tennessee Valley pay to electrify their region?

Certainly. If they couldn't - oh well. That's their problem. They need to figure it out. If they really couldn't, they could always move.

Your single-point-of-failure "sink or swim together" view is not only unconstitutional - it's idiotic. Better the "Tennessee Valley" fail than the entire United States fail. If we operate as we were constitutionally intended to - then we are 50 individual states united only in 18 specific functions. That's built in redundancy. Which means if California fails, Florida doesn't have to fail as well. They can continue to thrive and excel.

Bottom line - your vision is irrelevant. If you want us to become one massive single state and nothing more, then make your case to the American people and get the votes to amend the U.S. Constitution. Otherwise, you're just a lunatic blathering on the internet.

 

[P@triot]

What do you know of highway design and engineering? Could a highway be built in Florida with the same specifications as a highway built in Pennsylvania, or Colorado?

It doesn't need to be. The people of each state has engineers and are quite capable of building their own highways. They've done it for many decades. And if they magically run out of engineers - it is completely legal and constitutional to hire engineering firms from other states to do work for you.

Of all of your comments - this one was by far the most bizarre.

 

[P@triot]

Isn't there something to be said for a national government that sees infrastructure as a national need?

No. No there isn't. At all. If it were a "national need" that was actually good for the American people - you would have no troubles getting the votes necessary to amend the U.S. Constitution and make it the legal responsibility of the federal government.

It's pretty sad that you advocate for our own government to violate the law. Do it legally or don't do it at all.

 

[P@triot]

A need in regions too poor or too inaccessible to pay for interstate highway quality roads?

What?!? It's 2017 - nothing is "inaccessible". You do realize we have 4-wheel drive, helicopters, etc. now - don't you? And if it is "inaccessible" to the state then it will most certainly be "inaccessible" to the federal government as well.

As far as you're "too poor" insanity - the federal government is $20 trillion in debt. They are far more destitute than any state, county, city, or "region" in the U.S. Period.

 

[Nosmo King]

A need in regions too poor or too inaccessible to pay for interstate highway quality roads?

What?!? It's 2017 - nothing is "inaccessible". You do realize we have 4-wheel drive, helicopters, etc. now - don't you? And if it is "inaccessible" to the state then it will most certainly be "inaccessible" to the federal government as well.

As far as you're "too poor" insanity - the federal government is $20 trillion in debt. They are far more destitute than any state, county, city, or "region" in the U.S. Period.

Let's understand this. Your contention is the federal government should deliver the mail, defend the shores, protect our rights and get out of the way.

That's fine if you don't want to live in a modern, vibrant society. If you don't want public health a priority. If commerce, particularly interstate commerce is not important. If you don't mind squandering the resources and talents of all citizens.

Do you believe that th Alsacians or the Westphalians could elevate their tribal interests into a world economic power without the Bavarians and the Prussians? No. It took the state of Germany to achieve powerhouse status.

Could the New Hampshirites and the Rhode Islanders become world powers without the Texans and the Coloradans and the Wisconsinites?

Your narrow vision of fifty states without the scaffolding of a federal government is why we threw out the Articles of Confederation in favor of a constitution. And it's why that constitution is elastic enough to accommodate a vision greater than itself.

 

[P@triot]

A need in regions too poor or too inaccessible to pay for interstate highway quality roads?

What?!? It's 2017 - nothing is "inaccessible". You do realize we have 4-wheel drive, helicopters, etc. now - don't you? And if it is "inaccessible" to the state then it will most certainly be "inaccessible" to the federal government as well.

As far as you're "too poor" insanity - the federal government is $20 trillion in debt. They are far more destitute than any state, county, city, or "region" in the U.S. Period.

Let's understand this. Your contention is the federal government should deliver the mail, defend the shores, protect our rights and get out of the way.

Yep. My contention is that we have a legal requirement that holds the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and not one damn more. If you want more - amend the U.S. Constitution. If you can't get the votes to do it, respect the fact that We the People have spoken.

 

[P@triot]

That's fine if you don't want to live in a modern, vibrant society. If you don't want public health a priority. If commerce, particularly interstate commerce is not important. If you don't mind squandering the resources and talents of all citizens.

What an adorable false narrative. We built the most "vibrant" (hilarious progressive buzzword) society in the world with a federal government that was restricted to their 18 enumerated powers. We went from a fledgling nation to the world's most elite superpower with constitutional government.

Now we're headed in the exact opposite direction. $20 trillion in debt. Continue to drop in education rankings. Continue to drop in economic freedom index rankings. Less civil liberties.

If that's your idea of a "modern, vibrant society" - no thanks.

 

[P@triot]

If you don't mind squandering the resources and talents of all citizens.

I'm sorry Stalin - are you under the impression that the "talents of citizens are wasted" if they are not controlled by the federal government?!? Holy shit Adolf....

Was Bill Gates talents wasted?!? They were cultivated under the Reagan Administration, were not controlled by government, and his company was not funded by government.

Was Steve Jobs talents wasted?!? They were cultivated under the Reagan Administration, were not controlled by government, and his company was not funded by government.

Cities, counties, and states all have their own governments. You'll be ok - I promise. Since you're so addicted to government, look to those governments. Where you have a larger voice and your vote matters more.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The left is so easy to dupe. Donald Trump is a life-long liberal who progressives would worship if he ran for president with a little "D" behind his name. But simply because of that "R" they are rioting, engaging in violence, and losing their minds.

Here is a perfect example. Yet another progressive policy that Donald Trump supports. If this passes (and I pray it doesn't) the left will somehow manage to complain about it despite it being their biggest talking point over the past two decades...

“We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation,” he vowed in his Inaugural Address.

Senate Democrats to Unveil $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan

The difference is Trump is ver y conservative on most issues

I don't know how anyone can Deny that

And when Trump says he's gonna fix infrastructure, I trust him to do it and not to do what Obama did, which is to pay off campaign.contributors.

 

[P@triot]

The difference is Trump is ver y conservative on most issues. I don't know how anyone can Deny that

He is?!? Seriously?!? Is that why he gave the maximum amount allowed in campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton? Or is she ultra conservative too in your mind?

 

[P@triot]

The difference is Trump is ver y conservative on most issues I don't know how anyone can Deny that

He is so conservative that Senate Democrats are crafting his legislation for him....

Senate Democrats to Unveil $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan

 

[whitehall]

I depends how you define the word progressive. JFK would be considered a conservative today because the democrat party has drifted off the freaking charts.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The left is so easy to dupe. Donald Trump is a life-long liberal who progressives would worship if he ran for president with a little "D" behind his name. But simply because of that "R" they are rioting, engaging in violence, and losing their minds.

Here is a perfect example. Yet another progressive policy that Donald Trump supports. If this passes (and I pray it doesn't) the left will somehow manage to complain about it despite it being their biggest talking point over the past two decades...

“We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation,” he vowed in his Inaugural Address.

Senate Democrats to Unveil $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan

Sounds like the right is easy to dupe.

 

[Dschrute3]

Trump is not a traditional Conservative Republican. He never has been. Democrats could work with him if they got past the 'R' thing. He holds 'Liberal' stances on various issues.

But will they decide to work with him? I seriously doubt it. When you start off ranting & raving about him being 'Hitler' and 'Racist', i don't think there's much hope for any Bipartisanship.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The difference is Trump is ver y conservative on most issues. I don't know how anyone can Deny that

He is?!? Seriously?!? Is that why he gave the maximum amount allowed in campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton? Or is she ultra conservative too in your mind?

Patriot, he gave money to.get favors, he was honest about it, didn't lie about it didn't hide it. He said the systems sucks and I know because I used it to the fullest.

He gave money to Hillary because she was his senator and he wanted a return.


Now my question is, so far which orders do you have a problem.with?

Approving the pipelines?
His appointments?
Building the wall?
Killing TPP?
His economic policy?
Repealing Obamacare?
His restrictions on abortions?

He's already done things on all of these issues and I have no issues with any of these and I'm as right wing as they come.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The difference is Trump is ver y conservative on most issues I don't know how anyone can Deny that

He is so conservative that Senate Democrats are crafting his legislation for him....

Senate Democrats to Unveil $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan

First you are ignoring everything else.
Second, Republicans waste money too, but if they want input they need to give it.

Third I'll wait to see the plan, and if it's so.bad republicans can vote no and kill it.