CDZ Donald Trump's Top Ten Failures

[playtime]

A slightly different scenario... it was the City of New London taking a position in favor of Big Corp to claim ownership of land under the guise that Pfizer would generate more tax revenue for the city, thus benefitting the city as a whole & the amt. of revenue from Pfizer would be greater than what the city could get from the individual homeowner. Does that make it any better? Absolutely not... but to equate that as the same as an individual's private business taking land that would only be benefitting that private individual, such as with Trump, is not equal.

i am not defending Trump.

I was just curious if this bothered you before it could be used against Trump.

Absolutely it bothers me. I think anybody who thinks it's ok to take away people's lively hoods for personal profit are snakes. Trump included... & what bothers me more about HIM in particular - is that he is running for POTUS.

What a waste the New London eminent domain case was. After all was said & done- & after leveling those homes & building the offices etc...Pfizer didn't even stick around & is still abandoned.

You seem to be missing the connection between all the democratically appointed judges who believe that, and who made it the law of the land, and those Democrats who appointed them because of their beliefs.

Yes. This is a negative fact that can be legitimately used against Trump.

But if this is a negative fact that can be legitimately be used against Trump it is also a negative fact that can be used against every Democratic Candidate.

One gop appointed Justice sided with injustice in this case. ALL of the Democratically appointed Justices were there with him.

So, as an issue in the election, it is a wash. Because you can either vote for Trump, who would might appoint a justice who supports such abuse of Government Power, or you can vote for the Dem who will certainly appoint someone who supports such an abuse of Government Power.

A) I am not a Democrat
B) Bernie Sanders is taking ZERO cash from any corps & STILL getting his voice heard
C) Since the Citizen's United ruling - he has intro'd legislation no less than 3x trying to overturn it, & has stated that issue would be part of the litmus test for a SC appointee. THAT is one reason why I am voting for him should he make it all the way to nomination.
D) I am pretty certain that Sanders would not favor that kind (eminent domain abuse) of 'Government Involvement'.

a) Socialist or commie? Either way you're voting Democrat, are you not?

b) Good for him.

c) Good for him again, but if he appoints Judges from the Left side of the Ideological Divide he is likely to be appointing a Justice that will then vote like the other dem appointed Justices, ie for government power.

d) I'm sure Ronald Reagan wouldn't either, and yet Kennedy the Rat did.

I am an Indie. I've voted enough times for (R) & just like my siggy says... they are no longer the party of true republicans but a bunch of religious fanatical RWNJs. Nowadays, Reagan would be considered a lefty by the GOP's standards. Oh how forgetful they have all become concerning Saint Ronny.

Another strong issue with me & the reason why I won't be voting (R) is the possibility of the SC overturning Roe v Wade.

You wanna talk about 'government involvement'? When it comes to denying a woman's autonomy... that would be THE ULTIMATE in 'government involvement'.

 

[playtime]

Citizen's United is for corporation rights to have the same equal footing as a living breathing human & has nothing to do with 'speech' & everything to do with buying elections.

If you want to craft policy that effects or even targetts corporations, then they have an interest and IMO, a right to participate in the debate.

Their 'right' to participate in a debate has deeper pockets & therefore their 'rights' of interest carry more weight than the average American; & buys politicians that will favor their interests (for better or worse) over society as a whole.

So, instead you want to shut them up, so you can craft policy that targets them and their wealth, which is actually the wealth of stockholders, many though retirement plans and you can take their money and use it for your agenda with less effort.

The real answer is to the problems of politicians for sale is to vote out the politicians who are for sale.

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth so you can justify your own position?

I'd like to see campaign reform that takes ALL outside $ away from the election process, especially PACs. I would like to see the playing field leveled to give EVERYONE... (D)s (R)s & Indies an equal footing & an equal chance for election & may the BEST person for the job actually win.. not who had the most cashish to buy their way into political office.

What a radical concept 'eh?

LOL.

Sounds like a plan guaranteed to cut out any true outsiders forever.

Not if everybody (career pols or not) has the same amount of cash. That's the beauty of it.

 

[Correll]

i am not defending Trump.

I was just curious if this bothered you before it could be used against Trump.

Absolutely it bothers me. I think anybody who thinks it's ok to take away people's lively hoods for personal profit are snakes. Trump included... & what bothers me more about HIM in particular - is that he is running for POTUS.

What a waste the New London eminent domain case was. After all was said & done- & after leveling those homes & building the offices etc...Pfizer didn't even stick around & is still abandoned.

You seem to be missing the connection between all the democratically appointed judges who believe that, and who made it the law of the land, and those Democrats who appointed them because of their beliefs.

Yes. This is a negative fact that can be legitimately used against Trump.

But if this is a negative fact that can be legitimately be used against Trump it is also a negative fact that can be used against every Democratic Candidate.

One gop appointed Justice sided with injustice in this case. ALL of the Democratically appointed Justices were there with him.

So, as an issue in the election, it is a wash. Because you can either vote for Trump, who would might appoint a justice who supports such abuse of Government Power, or you can vote for the Dem who will certainly appoint someone who supports such an abuse of Government Power.

A) I am not a Democrat
B) Bernie Sanders is taking ZERO cash from any corps & STILL getting his voice heard
C) Since the Citizen's United ruling - he has intro'd legislation no less than 3x trying to overturn it, & has stated that issue would be part of the litmus test for a SC appointee. THAT is one reason why I am voting for him should he make it all the way to nomination.
D) I am pretty certain that Sanders would not favor that kind (eminent domain abuse) of 'Government Involvement'.

a) Socialist or commie? Either way you're voting Democrat, are you not?

b) Good for him.

c) Good for him again, but if he appoints Judges from the Left side of the Ideological Divide he is likely to be appointing a Justice that will then vote like the other dem appointed Justices, ie for government power.

d) I'm sure Ronald Reagan wouldn't either, and yet Kennedy the Rat did.

I am an Indie. I've voted enough times for (R) & just like my siggy says... they are no longer the party of true republicans but a bunch of religious fanatical RWNJs. Nowadays, Reagan would be considered a lefty by the GOP's standards. Oh how forgetful they have all become concerning Saint Ronny.

Another strong issue with me & the reason why I won't be voting (R) is the possibility of the SC overturning Roe v Wade.

You wanna talk about 'government involvement'? When it comes to denying a woman's autonomy... that would be THE ULTIMATE in 'government involvement'.

Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question.

Roe v Wade is only about a "woman's autonomy" if you assume as a premise that the fetus/unborn child is not a person with no rights.

 

[Correll]

If you want to craft policy that effects or even targetts corporations, then they have an interest and IMO, a right to participate in the debate.

Their 'right' to participate in a debate has deeper pockets & therefore their 'rights' of interest carry more weight than the average American; & buys politicians that will favor their interests (for better or worse) over society as a whole.

So, instead you want to shut them up, so you can craft policy that targets them and their wealth, which is actually the wealth of stockholders, many though retirement plans and you can take their money and use it for your agenda with less effort.

The real answer is to the problems of politicians for sale is to vote out the politicians who are for sale.

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth so you can justify your own position?

I'd like to see campaign reform that takes ALL outside $ away from the election process, especially PACs. I would like to see the playing field leveled to give EVERYONE... (D)s (R)s & Indies an equal footing & an equal chance for election & may the BEST person for the job actually win.. not who had the most cashish to buy their way into political office.

What a radical concept 'eh?

LOL.

Sounds like a plan guaranteed to cut out any true outsiders forever.

Not if everybody (career pols or not) has the same amount of cash. That's the beauty of it.

As long as the rule enforcers were honest and unbiased.

Oops.

 

[mudwhistle]

September 25, 2015
Putin moves in as Obama's Syrian strategy against ISIS collapses
ByRick Moran
A very sharp analysis of the Syrian situation from theNew York Observer's John Schindler, who lays out a case that Russian influence in the Middle East is on the rise while America's is being frittered away by the incompetents at the White House.

How incompetent?

The forces Mr. Putin has just deployed to Syria are impressive, veteran special operators backed by a wing of fighters and ground attack jets that are expected to commence air strikes on Assad’s foes soon. They are backed by air defense units, which is puzzling since the Islamic State has no air force, indicating that the Kremlin’s true intent in Syria has little to do with the stated aim of fighting terrorism and is really about propping up Russia’s longtime client in Damascus.

The White House is left planning “deconfliction” with Moscow—which is diplomatic language for entreating Russians, who now dominate Syrian airspace, not to shoot down American drones, which provide the lion’s share of our intelligence on the Islamic State. The recent meeting on Syrian developments between Mr. Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who clearly finds dealing with the Russian strongman preferable to parleying with President Obama, indicates where power is flowing in today’s Middle East.

To make matters worse for the administration, new revelations regarding flawed intelligence assessments of the Islamic State, which I told you about last week, paint a troubling portrait of organized lying at the Pentagon. Some of the more than 50 analysts at Central Command in Tampa who blew the whistle on politicized intelligence reported feeling “bullied” to make their assessments of the U.S.-led war on the Islamic State appear more successful than the facts warranted. This is about much more than merely “cherry-picking” intelligence.

One named whistleblower has come forward about CENTCOM’s intelligence problems, explaining that he witnessed persistent, command-mandated low-balling of terrorist threats in Iraq since the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Rising terrorism in Iraq was “off message” for the White House, eager to pronounce jihadism there as dead as its leader.

It's not just cooked intel. It's the way the White House has been interferring in the prosecution of the war against ISIS, highlighted by the resignation of John Allen, Obama's "war czar," who quit in disgust because of micromanaging from national security aides:

The main culprit is micromanagement by White House staffers, especially on the National Security Council, which is bloated and regularly treats senior military officers and diplomats like hired help. Obscenity-laced tirades by senior NSC staff are not uncommon. To make matters worse, significant differences between the NSC and the Pentagon on how to defeat the Islamic State went unresolved for months, leading to lethargy inside the Beltway while U.S. theater commanders were close to panicking about the enemy’s rise. Mr. Allen eventually had enough.

Now the White House needs to find a replacement who’s up to the job, which looks to be no easy task. “Good luck with that,” stated a senior Pentagon official, “I doubt they’ll find another four-star eager to be the dog who catches that car.” A senior NATO official explained that Mr. Allen’s departure “is really a serious blow. We had little confidence before in President Obama’s ability to defeat Daesh,” the Arabic term for the Islamic State. “Now we have none.”

Schindler speculates on what happens next in Syria:

What happens next in Syria is the top guessing game among security experts the world over right now. Has Mr. Putin finally gone too far? Can anything be salvaged from that awful conflict that could serve Western interests while stopping the rise of the Islamic State—and perhaps even save innocent lives? What is the aim of Operation Inherent Resolve now that General Allen is leaving the stage? All that’s certain at this point is that President Obama’s flailing war against the Islamic State is looking for a strategy as well as a new czar.

It has been evident from the start that the president has not been serious about confronting the Islamic State and was interested only in doing the bare minimum necessary to give the illusion of action. When you pretend to fight a war, the results are predictable: failure. Vladimir Putin should be grateful for the gift President Obama has given him in Syria, as 70 years of U.S. policy to deny Russian influence in the Middle East appears to be unravelling.

A very sharp analysis of the Syrian situation from theNew York Observer's John Schindler, who lays out a case that Russian influence in the Middle East is on the rise while America's is being frittered away by the incompetents at the White House.

​

Read more:Blog: Putin moves in as Obama's Syrian strategy against ISIS collapses
Follow us:@AmericanThinker on Twitter|AmericanThinker on Facebook

Ok, I won't vote for Obama in the next election. Now getting back on topic, why do you think Trump is up to job.

Several reasons:

He loves people - You can tell just by watching his interaction with the public at his events, that he loves being around people. Can't say the same with Hillary. She avoids them like the plague. Obama seems to only like rubbing elbows with the rich and powerful. Trump seems to be more at home with the average person. Gosh.....who'd a tunk.....a rich man who loves the poor.

Unlike Obama, he's a workaholic - Anyone who's read his books knows he has unbelievable energy. He multi-tasks like crazy. His energy level comes out when he talks. He has a tendency to put everything into words like "Isn't this wonderful.....this is going to be so big and so great...it's unbelievable".

He loves this country - This is quite a change when we've been spending the last almost 7 years listening to Big-ears tell everyone how sorry America is for destroying their countries. Trump's America comes first ideology is refreshing.

He's a leader - He's an alpha male that's used to being in charge. He lays out a mission to his people and tells them what he wants to happen, and they make it happen. Obama was never in charge of anything other than training people to steal elections. That was what he taught in college. The best way to be radical without appearing radical. Using words that won't cause conflict or anger in an exchange of ideas. Obama specializes in organizing turmoil. Trump specializes in doing things others felt was impossible.

He knows how to hire the right people to do that job, not because they donated to his campaign - The biggest problem with Obama is he puts people in important positions that gave him big donations.....not because they're skilled in that arena.

He cannot be bought by anyone trying to make themselves rich while making life worse for Americans - Trump doesn't take people's money. He gives to everyone he feels is worth it. Hillary has already sold us out. Trump seems to be above that sort of thing. He's used to living in more wealth and comfort than what the office offers, so being treated like royalty isn't one of his reasons for running for the position. He probably has a better jet than Air Force One. The White House is probably smaller than one of his mansions. Like Reagan did, I expect he won't cash a single check he earns in office. Right now, that's almost all Obama claims on his taxes. This makes it very easy to buy the president. Obama declares $400k per year but somehow he was able to acquire a $40 million dollar beachfront property on Oahu HI. He can't pay the taxes on that property, much less buy it.....so he's doing some big favors for some very rich people.

He won't sell us out to Democrats - This is the number one reason I support him. I don't feel I can trust anyone else. The fact that everyone in the political establishment hates him and is trying to undercut him, shows me that he's not in with them in this socialist criminal conspiracy that seems to be going on all over the world.

He's a fighter - He doesn't take shit off of anyone. This is one of his greatest strengths and at times his biggest liability. He fights his battles in the open, while others fight theirs behind closed doors. He says things that some find offensive.....but they more times than not, turn out to be true. He never swears, but he calls his critics clowns and lightweights. Trust me.....they're privately calling him much worse. Also, he likes dealing from a position of strength rather than a position of weakness. Obama deals from weakness with other world leaders but deals with Republicans and business owners like a ruthless dictator. Obviously he hates Americans and America and everything it stands for. To be a good president, you have to honor your office and not bring disgrace to that office. You have to love America first.

 

[Flopper]

September 25, 2015
Putin moves in as Obama's Syrian strategy against ISIS collapses
ByRick Moran
A very sharp analysis of the Syrian situation from theNew York Observer's John Schindler, who lays out a case that Russian influence in the Middle East is on the rise while America's is being frittered away by the incompetents at the White House.

How incompetent?

The forces Mr. Putin has just deployed to Syria are impressive, veteran special operators backed by a wing of fighters and ground attack jets that are expected to commence air strikes on Assad’s foes soon. They are backed by air defense units, which is puzzling since the Islamic State has no air force, indicating that the Kremlin’s true intent in Syria has little to do with the stated aim of fighting terrorism and is really about propping up Russia’s longtime client in Damascus.

The White House is left planning “deconfliction” with Moscow—which is diplomatic language for entreating Russians, who now dominate Syrian airspace, not to shoot down American drones, which provide the lion’s share of our intelligence on the Islamic State. The recent meeting on Syrian developments between Mr. Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who clearly finds dealing with the Russian strongman preferable to parleying with President Obama, indicates where power is flowing in today’s Middle East.

To make matters worse for the administration, new revelations regarding flawed intelligence assessments of the Islamic State, which I told you about last week, paint a troubling portrait of organized lying at the Pentagon. Some of the more than 50 analysts at Central Command in Tampa who blew the whistle on politicized intelligence reported feeling “bullied” to make their assessments of the U.S.-led war on the Islamic State appear more successful than the facts warranted. This is about much more than merely “cherry-picking” intelligence.

One named whistleblower has come forward about CENTCOM’s intelligence problems, explaining that he witnessed persistent, command-mandated low-balling of terrorist threats in Iraq since the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Rising terrorism in Iraq was “off message” for the White House, eager to pronounce jihadism there as dead as its leader.

It's not just cooked intel. It's the way the White House has been interferring in the prosecution of the war against ISIS, highlighted by the resignation of John Allen, Obama's "war czar," who quit in disgust because of micromanaging from national security aides:

The main culprit is micromanagement by White House staffers, especially on the National Security Council, which is bloated and regularly treats senior military officers and diplomats like hired help. Obscenity-laced tirades by senior NSC staff are not uncommon. To make matters worse, significant differences between the NSC and the Pentagon on how to defeat the Islamic State went unresolved for months, leading to lethargy inside the Beltway while U.S. theater commanders were close to panicking about the enemy’s rise. Mr. Allen eventually had enough.

Now the White House needs to find a replacement who’s up to the job, which looks to be no easy task. “Good luck with that,” stated a senior Pentagon official, “I doubt they’ll find another four-star eager to be the dog who catches that car.” A senior NATO official explained that Mr. Allen’s departure “is really a serious blow. We had little confidence before in President Obama’s ability to defeat Daesh,” the Arabic term for the Islamic State. “Now we have none.”

Schindler speculates on what happens next in Syria:

What happens next in Syria is the top guessing game among security experts the world over right now. Has Mr. Putin finally gone too far? Can anything be salvaged from that awful conflict that could serve Western interests while stopping the rise of the Islamic State—and perhaps even save innocent lives? What is the aim of Operation Inherent Resolve now that General Allen is leaving the stage? All that’s certain at this point is that President Obama’s flailing war against the Islamic State is looking for a strategy as well as a new czar.

It has been evident from the start that the president has not been serious about confronting the Islamic State and was interested only in doing the bare minimum necessary to give the illusion of action. When you pretend to fight a war, the results are predictable: failure. Vladimir Putin should be grateful for the gift President Obama has given him in Syria, as 70 years of U.S. policy to deny Russian influence in the Middle East appears to be unravelling.

A very sharp analysis of the Syrian situation from theNew York Observer's John Schindler, who lays out a case that Russian influence in the Middle East is on the rise while America's is being frittered away by the incompetents at the White House.

​

Read more:Blog: Putin moves in as Obama's Syrian strategy against ISIS collapses
Follow us:@AmericanThinker on Twitter|AmericanThinker on Facebook

Ok, I won't vote for Obama in the next election. Now getting back on topic, why do you think Trump is up to job.

Several reasons:

He loves people - You can tell just by watching his interaction with the public at his events, that he loves being around people. Can't say the same with Hillary. She avoids them like the plague. Obama seems to only like rubbing elbows with the rich and powerful. Trump seems to be more at home with the average person. Gosh.....who'd a tunk.....a rich man who loves the poor.

Unlike Obama, he's a workaholic - Anyone who's read his books knows he has unbelievable energy. He multi-tasks like crazy. His energy level comes out when he talks. He has a tendency to put everything into words like "Isn't this wonderful.....this is going to be so big and so great...it's unbelievable".

He loves this country - This is quite a change when we've been spending the last almost 7 years listening to Big-ears tell everyone how sorry America is for destroying their countries. Trump's America comes first ideology is refreshing.

He's a leader - He's an alpha male that's used to being in charge. He lays out a mission to his people and tells them what he wants to happen, and they make it happen. Obama was never in charge of anything other than training people to steal elections. That was what he taught in college. The best way to be radical without appearing radical. Using words that won't cause conflict or anger in an exchange of ideas. Obama specializes in organizing turmoil. Trump specializes in doing things others felt was impossible.

He knows how to hire the right people to do that job, not because they donated to his campaign - The biggest problem with Obama is he puts people in important positions that gave him big donations.....not because they're skilled in that arena.

He cannot be bought by anyone trying to make themselves rich while making life worse for Americans - Trump doesn't take people's money. He gives to everyone he feels is worth it. Hillary has already sold us out. Trump seems to be above that sort of thing. He's used to living in more wealth and comfort than what the office offers, so being treated like royalty isn't one of his reasons for running for the position. He probably has a better jet than Air Force One. The White House is probably smaller than one of his mansions. Like Reagan did, I expect he won't cash a single check he earns in office. Right now, that's almost all Obama claims on his taxes. This makes it very easy to buy the president. Obama declares $400k per year but somehow he was able to acquire a $40 million dollar beachfront property on Oahu HI. He can't pay the taxes on that property, much less buy it.....so he's doing some big favors for some very rich people.

He won't sell us out to Democrats - This is the number one reason I support him. I don't feel I can trust anyone else. The fact that everyone in the political establishment hates him and is trying to undercut him, shows me that he's not in with them in this socialist criminal conspiracy that seems to be going on all over the world.

He's a fighter - He doesn't take shit off of anyone. This is one of his greatest strengths and at times his biggest liability. He fights his battles in the open, while others fight theirs behind closed doors. He says things that some find offensive.....but they more times than not, turn out to be true. He never swears, but he calls his critics clowns and lightweights. Trust me.....they're privately calling him much worse. Also, he likes dealing from a position of strength rather than a position of weakness. Obama deals from weakness with other world leaders but deals with Republicans and business owners like a ruthless dictator. Obviously he hates Americans and America and everything it stands for. To be a good president, you have to honor your office and not bring disgrace to that office. You have to love America first.

Loves people, works hard, a fighter, a leader, and is hated by most of the people he will have to work with as president. Trump wouldn't hire someone with those qualifications and neither would the American voters.

Yes, voters are sick of professional politicians who don't delivery on their promises but that doesn't mean they're ready to hire a president that thinks bombing the Iraqi oil fields will stop ISIS, doesn't know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah, and uses the term immigrant and illegal immigrant interchangeably. Voters have elected commander and chiefs who weren't veterans, but not draft dodgers. Almost every promise Trump has made requires strong support from Congress, yet his experience with Congress has been limited to name calling and lobbying.

 

[Flopper]

Citizen's United is for corporation rights to have the same equal footing as a living breathing human & has nothing to do with 'speech' & everything to do with buying elections.

I will believe that Corporations and Unions have the same rights and responsibilities as individuals, when I see the first Corporation put in jail.

I recognize Citizens United is the ruling- but absolutely one that deserves a Constitutional Amendment- my feeling is any 'entity' that can't go to jail for a crime- shouldn't be able to 'donate' to politics.

The Shield of Corporation is abused, IMO, to protect high level corporate decision makers from the legal repercussions of their criminal decisions.

But that is a separate matter from the Government having any need to suppress speech it does not want out there, even if the bill is being paid by a corporation.

Every individual stockholder in a Corporation has every right to express him or herself- and to spend his or her money doing so.

Corporations are not people- or at least they should not be treated as people- we do not allow Corporations to vote- nor should we allow them to pay to influence elections. Individuals can vote- and individuals can express themselves quite fine- and if individuals break the law they can go to jail for doing so.

But corporations can't.

A corporation is a very ingenuous legal construct for obtaining profit without any individual responsibility. A corporation should not be treated as an individual in any way because it is not an individual.

WHy not?

A corporation is not now, nor has it ever been, a constitutional person with voting rights; it is not, not has it ever been, a democratic citizen; nor has it ever been a constituent member of "We the People " The founders did not mention the word "corporation" in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and only a handful of corporations were even in existence at the time the Constitution was written.

A corporation isn't a membership organization but an "artificial entity," as the Supreme Court has called it, chartered by either the state or federal governments to serve public purposes. Legally speaking, it has no independent constitutional standing outside of the rights of the people who own it and they already have the right as citizens to contribute and spend on campaigns. The idea now being promoted that CEOs have a First Amendment right to take other people's money out of corporate treasuries to spend on politics is outlandish.

 

[Correll]

I will believe that Corporations and Unions have the same rights and responsibilities as individuals, when I see the first Corporation put in jail.

I recognize Citizens United is the ruling- but absolutely one that deserves a Constitutional Amendment- my feeling is any 'entity' that can't go to jail for a crime- shouldn't be able to 'donate' to politics.

The Shield of Corporation is abused, IMO, to protect high level corporate decision makers from the legal repercussions of their criminal decisions.

But that is a separate matter from the Government having any need to suppress speech it does not want out there, even if the bill is being paid by a corporation.

Every individual stockholder in a Corporation has every right to express him or herself- and to spend his or her money doing so.

Corporations are not people- or at least they should not be treated as people- we do not allow Corporations to vote- nor should we allow them to pay to influence elections. Individuals can vote- and individuals can express themselves quite fine- and if individuals break the law they can go to jail for doing so.

But corporations can't.

A corporation is a very ingenuous legal construct for obtaining profit without any individual responsibility. A corporation should not be treated as an individual in any way because it is not an individual.

WHy not?

A corporation is not now, nor has it ever been, a constitutional person with voting rights; it is not, not has it ever been, a democratic citizen; nor has it ever been a constituent member of "We the People " The founders did not mention the word "corporation" in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and only a handful of corporations were even in existence at the time the Constitution was written.

A corporation isn't a membership organization but an "artificial entity," as the Supreme Court has called it, chartered by either the state or federal governments to serve public purposes. Legally speaking, it has no independent constitutional standing outside of the rights of the people who own it and they already have the right as citizens to contribute and spend on campaigns. The idea now being promoted that CEOs have a First Amendment right to take other people's money out of corporate treasuries to spend on politics is outlandish.

Funny, you left out that Corporations are allowed to own property, sign contracts and are required to pay taxes.

Legally speaking.

Taxing "entities" that are not even allowed to complain about their taxes.

A liberal's dream.

 

[Syriusly]

The Shield of Corporation is abused, IMO, to protect high level corporate decision makers from the legal repercussions of their criminal decisions.

But that is a separate matter from the Government having any need to suppress speech it does not want out there, even if the bill is being paid by a corporation.

Every individual stockholder in a Corporation has every right to express him or herself- and to spend his or her money doing so.

Corporations are not people- or at least they should not be treated as people- we do not allow Corporations to vote- nor should we allow them to pay to influence elections. Individuals can vote- and individuals can express themselves quite fine- and if individuals break the law they can go to jail for doing so.

But corporations can't.

A corporation is a very ingenuous legal construct for obtaining profit without any individual responsibility. A corporation should not be treated as an individual in any way because it is not an individual.

WHy not?

A corporation is not now, nor has it ever been, a constitutional person with voting rights; it is not, not has it ever been, a democratic citizen; nor has it ever been a constituent member of "We the People " The founders did not mention the word "corporation" in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and only a handful of corporations were even in existence at the time the Constitution was written.

A corporation isn't a membership organization but an "artificial entity," as the Supreme Court has called it, chartered by either the state or federal governments to serve public purposes. Legally speaking, it has no independent constitutional standing outside of the rights of the people who own it and they already have the right as citizens to contribute and spend on campaigns. The idea now being promoted that CEOs have a First Amendment right to take other people's money out of corporate treasuries to spend on politics is outlandish.

Funny, you left out that Corporations are allowed to own property, sign contracts and are required to pay taxes.

Legally speaking.

Taxing "entities" that are not even allowed to complain about their taxes.

A liberal's dream.

Unlimited money from corporations that cannot be sent to jails like you or me, buying off politicians.

A Conservative's dream.

 

[Correll]

Every individual stockholder in a Corporation has every right to express him or herself- and to spend his or her money doing so.

Corporations are not people- or at least they should not be treated as people- we do not allow Corporations to vote- nor should we allow them to pay to influence elections. Individuals can vote- and individuals can express themselves quite fine- and if individuals break the law they can go to jail for doing so.

But corporations can't.

A corporation is a very ingenuous legal construct for obtaining profit without any individual responsibility. A corporation should not be treated as an individual in any way because it is not an individual.

WHy not?

A corporation is not now, nor has it ever been, a constitutional person with voting rights; it is not, not has it ever been, a democratic citizen; nor has it ever been a constituent member of "We the People " The founders did not mention the word "corporation" in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and only a handful of corporations were even in existence at the time the Constitution was written.

A corporation isn't a membership organization but an "artificial entity," as the Supreme Court has called it, chartered by either the state or federal governments to serve public purposes. Legally speaking, it has no independent constitutional standing outside of the rights of the people who own it and they already have the right as citizens to contribute and spend on campaigns. The idea now being promoted that CEOs have a First Amendment right to take other people's money out of corporate treasuries to spend on politics is outlandish.

Funny, you left out that Corporations are allowed to own property, sign contracts and are required to pay taxes.

Legally speaking.

Taxing "entities" that are not even allowed to complain about their taxes.

A liberal's dream.

Unlimited money from corporations that cannot be sent to jails like you or me, buying off politicians.

A Conservative's dream.

From above.

"The Shield of Corporation is abused, IMO, to protect high level corporate decision makers from the legal repercussions of their criminal decisions."


You want to reform that, I am there with you.

 

[Flopper]

The Shield of Corporation is abused, IMO, to protect high level corporate decision makers from the legal repercussions of their criminal decisions.

But that is a separate matter from the Government having any need to suppress speech it does not want out there, even if the bill is being paid by a corporation.

Every individual stockholder in a Corporation has every right to express him or herself- and to spend his or her money doing so.

Corporations are not people- or at least they should not be treated as people- we do not allow Corporations to vote- nor should we allow them to pay to influence elections. Individuals can vote- and individuals can express themselves quite fine- and if individuals break the law they can go to jail for doing so.

But corporations can't.

A corporation is a very ingenuous legal construct for obtaining profit without any individual responsibility. A corporation should not be treated as an individual in any way because it is not an individual.

WHy not?

A corporation is not now, nor has it ever been, a constitutional person with voting rights; it is not, not has it ever been, a democratic citizen; nor has it ever been a constituent member of "We the People " The founders did not mention the word "corporation" in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and only a handful of corporations were even in existence at the time the Constitution was written.

A corporation isn't a membership organization but an "artificial entity," as the Supreme Court has called it, chartered by either the state or federal governments to serve public purposes. Legally speaking, it has no independent constitutional standing outside of the rights of the people who own it and they already have the right as citizens to contribute and spend on campaigns. The idea now being promoted that CEOs have a First Amendment right to take other people's money out of corporate treasuries to spend on politics is outlandish.

Funny, you left out that Corporations are allowed to own property, sign contracts and are required to pay taxes.

Legally speaking.

Taxing "entities" that are not even allowed to complain about their taxes.

A liberal's dream.

Corporations have no need to complain, their lobbyist take care of that.

 

[playtime]

Absolutely it bothers me. I think anybody who thinks it's ok to take away people's lively hoods for personal profit are snakes. Trump included... & what bothers me more about HIM in particular - is that he is running for POTUS.

What a waste the New London eminent domain case was. After all was said & done- & after leveling those homes & building the offices etc...Pfizer didn't even stick around & is still abandoned.

You seem to be missing the connection between all the democratically appointed judges who believe that, and who made it the law of the land, and those Democrats who appointed them because of their beliefs.

Yes. This is a negative fact that can be legitimately used against Trump.

But if this is a negative fact that can be legitimately be used against Trump it is also a negative fact that can be used against every Democratic Candidate.

One gop appointed Justice sided with injustice in this case. ALL of the Democratically appointed Justices were there with him.

So, as an issue in the election, it is a wash. Because you can either vote for Trump, who would might appoint a justice who supports such abuse of Government Power, or you can vote for the Dem who will certainly appoint someone who supports such an abuse of Government Power.

A) I am not a Democrat
B) Bernie Sanders is taking ZERO cash from any corps & STILL getting his voice heard
C) Since the Citizen's United ruling - he has intro'd legislation no less than 3x trying to overturn it, & has stated that issue would be part of the litmus test for a SC appointee. THAT is one reason why I am voting for him should he make it all the way to nomination.
D) I am pretty certain that Sanders would not favor that kind (eminent domain abuse) of 'Government Involvement'.

a) Socialist or commie? Either way you're voting Democrat, are you not?

b) Good for him.

c) Good for him again, but if he appoints Judges from the Left side of the Ideological Divide he is likely to be appointing a Justice that will then vote like the other dem appointed Justices, ie for government power.

d) I'm sure Ronald Reagan wouldn't either, and yet Kennedy the Rat did.

I am an Indie. I've voted enough times for (R) & just like my siggy says... they are no longer the party of true republicans but a bunch of religious fanatical RWNJs. Nowadays, Reagan would be considered a lefty by the GOP's standards. Oh how forgetful they have all become concerning Saint Ronny.

Another strong issue with me & the reason why I won't be voting (R) is the possibility of the SC overturning Roe v Wade.

You wanna talk about 'government involvement'? When it comes to denying a woman's autonomy... that would be THE ULTIMATE in 'government involvement'.

Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question.

Roe v Wade is only about a "woman's autonomy" if you assume as a premise that the fetus/unborn child is not a person with no rights.

It's ALL about a woman's autonomy, & it's not a premise.

'smaller less intrusive' government.... but with conditions, when it suits *you*

someone has to have that final right & decision & you just answered that it's 'Uncle Sam'.

 

[playtime]

Their 'right' to participate in a debate has deeper pockets & therefore their 'rights' of interest carry more weight than the average American; & buys politicians that will favor their interests (for better or worse) over society as a whole.

So, instead you want to shut them up, so you can craft policy that targets them and their wealth, which is actually the wealth of stockholders, many though retirement plans and you can take their money and use it for your agenda with less effort.

The real answer is to the problems of politicians for sale is to vote out the politicians who are for sale.

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth so you can justify your own position?

I'd like to see campaign reform that takes ALL outside $ away from the election process, especially PACs. I would like to see the playing field leveled to give EVERYONE... (D)s (R)s & Indies an equal footing & an equal chance for election & may the BEST person for the job actually win.. not who had the most cashish to buy their way into political office.

What a radical concept 'eh?

LOL.

Sounds like a plan guaranteed to cut out any true outsiders forever.

Not if everybody (career pols or not) has the same amount of cash. That's the beauty of it.

As long as the rule enforcers were honest and unbiased.

Oops.

So throw tons of money at elections - that'll keep things honest.

 

[playtime]

September 25, 2015
Putin moves in as Obama's Syrian strategy against ISIS collapses
ByRick Moran
A very sharp analysis of the Syrian situation from theNew York Observer's John Schindler, who lays out a case that Russian influence in the Middle East is on the rise while America's is being frittered away by the incompetents at the White House.

How incompetent?

The forces Mr. Putin has just deployed to Syria are impressive, veteran special operators backed by a wing of fighters and ground attack jets that are expected to commence air strikes on Assad’s foes soon. They are backed by air defense units, which is puzzling since the Islamic State has no air force, indicating that the Kremlin’s true intent in Syria has little to do with the stated aim of fighting terrorism and is really about propping up Russia’s longtime client in Damascus.

The White House is left planning “deconfliction” with Moscow—which is diplomatic language for entreating Russians, who now dominate Syrian airspace, not to shoot down American drones, which provide the lion’s share of our intelligence on the Islamic State. The recent meeting on Syrian developments between Mr. Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who clearly finds dealing with the Russian strongman preferable to parleying with President Obama, indicates where power is flowing in today’s Middle East.

To make matters worse for the administration, new revelations regarding flawed intelligence assessments of the Islamic State, which I told you about last week, paint a troubling portrait of organized lying at the Pentagon. Some of the more than 50 analysts at Central Command in Tampa who blew the whistle on politicized intelligence reported feeling “bullied” to make their assessments of the U.S.-led war on the Islamic State appear more successful than the facts warranted. This is about much more than merely “cherry-picking” intelligence.

One named whistleblower has come forward about CENTCOM’s intelligence problems, explaining that he witnessed persistent, command-mandated low-balling of terrorist threats in Iraq since the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Rising terrorism in Iraq was “off message” for the White House, eager to pronounce jihadism there as dead as its leader.

It's not just cooked intel. It's the way the White House has been interferring in the prosecution of the war against ISIS, highlighted by the resignation of John Allen, Obama's "war czar," who quit in disgust because of micromanaging from national security aides:

The main culprit is micromanagement by White House staffers, especially on the National Security Council, which is bloated and regularly treats senior military officers and diplomats like hired help. Obscenity-laced tirades by senior NSC staff are not uncommon. To make matters worse, significant differences between the NSC and the Pentagon on how to defeat the Islamic State went unresolved for months, leading to lethargy inside the Beltway while U.S. theater commanders were close to panicking about the enemy’s rise. Mr. Allen eventually had enough.

Now the White House needs to find a replacement who’s up to the job, which looks to be no easy task. “Good luck with that,” stated a senior Pentagon official, “I doubt they’ll find another four-star eager to be the dog who catches that car.” A senior NATO official explained that Mr. Allen’s departure “is really a serious blow. We had little confidence before in President Obama’s ability to defeat Daesh,” the Arabic term for the Islamic State. “Now we have none.”

Schindler speculates on what happens next in Syria:

What happens next in Syria is the top guessing game among security experts the world over right now. Has Mr. Putin finally gone too far? Can anything be salvaged from that awful conflict that could serve Western interests while stopping the rise of the Islamic State—and perhaps even save innocent lives? What is the aim of Operation Inherent Resolve now that General Allen is leaving the stage? All that’s certain at this point is that President Obama’s flailing war against the Islamic State is looking for a strategy as well as a new czar.

It has been evident from the start that the president has not been serious about confronting the Islamic State and was interested only in doing the bare minimum necessary to give the illusion of action. When you pretend to fight a war, the results are predictable: failure. Vladimir Putin should be grateful for the gift President Obama has given him in Syria, as 70 years of U.S. policy to deny Russian influence in the Middle East appears to be unravelling.

A very sharp analysis of the Syrian situation from theNew York Observer's John Schindler, who lays out a case that Russian influence in the Middle East is on the rise while America's is being frittered away by the incompetents at the White House.

​

Read more:Blog: Putin moves in as Obama's Syrian strategy against ISIS collapses
Follow us:@AmericanThinker on Twitter|AmericanThinker on Facebook

Ok, I won't vote for Obama in the next election. Now getting back on topic, why do you think Trump is up to job.

Several reasons:

He loves people - You can tell just by watching his interaction with the public at his events, that he loves being around people. Can't say the same with Hillary. She avoids them like the plague. Obama seems to only like rubbing elbows with the rich and powerful. Trump seems to be more at home with the average person. Gosh.....who'd a tunk.....a rich man who loves the poor.

Unlike Obama, he's a workaholic - Anyone who's read his books knows he has unbelievable energy. He multi-tasks like crazy. His energy level comes out when he talks. He has a tendency to put everything into words like "Isn't this wonderful.....this is going to be so big and so great...it's unbelievable".

He loves this country - This is quite a change when we've been spending the last almost 7 years listening to Big-ears tell everyone how sorry America is for destroying their countries. Trump's America comes first ideology is refreshing.

He's a leader - He's an alpha male that's used to being in charge. He lays out a mission to his people and tells them what he wants to happen, and they make it happen. Obama was never in charge of anything other than training people to steal elections. That was what he taught in college. The best way to be radical without appearing radical. Using words that won't cause conflict or anger in an exchange of ideas. Obama specializes in organizing turmoil. Trump specializes in doing things others felt was impossible.

He knows how to hire the right people to do that job, not because they donated to his campaign - The biggest problem with Obama is he puts people in important positions that gave him big donations.....not because they're skilled in that arena.

He cannot be bought by anyone trying to make themselves rich while making life worse for Americans - Trump doesn't take people's money. He gives to everyone he feels is worth it. Hillary has already sold us out. Trump seems to be above that sort of thing. He's used to living in more wealth and comfort than what the office offers, so being treated like royalty isn't one of his reasons for running for the position. He probably has a better jet than Air Force One. The White House is probably smaller than one of his mansions. Like Reagan did, I expect he won't cash a single check he earns in office. Right now, that's almost all Obama claims on his taxes. This makes it very easy to buy the president. Obama declares $400k per year but somehow he was able to acquire a $40 million dollar beachfront property on Oahu HI. He can't pay the taxes on that property, much less buy it.....so he's doing some big favors for some very rich people.

He won't sell us out to Democrats - This is the number one reason I support him. I don't feel I can trust anyone else. The fact that everyone in the political establishment hates him and is trying to undercut him, shows me that he's not in with them in this socialist criminal conspiracy that seems to be going on all over the world.

He's a fighter - He doesn't take shit off of anyone. This is one of his greatest strengths and at times his biggest liability. He fights his battles in the open, while others fight theirs behind closed doors. He says things that some find offensive.....but they more times than not, turn out to be true. He never swears, but he calls his critics clowns and lightweights. Trust me.....they're privately calling him much worse. Also, he likes dealing from a position of strength rather than a position of weakness. Obama deals from weakness with other world leaders but deals with Republicans and business owners like a ruthless dictator. Obviously he hates Americans and America and everything it stands for. To be a good president, you have to honor your office and not bring disgrace to that office. You have to love America first.

 

[playtime]

I will believe that Corporations and Unions have the same rights and responsibilities as individuals, when I see the first Corporation put in jail.

I recognize Citizens United is the ruling- but absolutely one that deserves a Constitutional Amendment- my feeling is any 'entity' that can't go to jail for a crime- shouldn't be able to 'donate' to politics.

The Shield of Corporation is abused, IMO, to protect high level corporate decision makers from the legal repercussions of their criminal decisions.

But that is a separate matter from the Government having any need to suppress speech it does not want out there, even if the bill is being paid by a corporation.

Every individual stockholder in a Corporation has every right to express him or herself- and to spend his or her money doing so.

Corporations are not people- or at least they should not be treated as people- we do not allow Corporations to vote- nor should we allow them to pay to influence elections. Individuals can vote- and individuals can express themselves quite fine- and if individuals break the law they can go to jail for doing so.

But corporations can't.

A corporation is a very ingenuous legal construct for obtaining profit without any individual responsibility. A corporation should not be treated as an individual in any way because it is not an individual.

WHy not?

A corporation is not now, nor has it ever been, a constitutional person with voting rights; it is not, not has it ever been, a democratic citizen; nor has it ever been a constituent member of "We the People " The founders did not mention the word "corporation" in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and only a handful of corporations were even in existence at the time the Constitution was written.

A corporation isn't a membership organization but an "artificial entity," as the Supreme Court has called it, chartered by either the state or federal governments to serve public purposes. Legally speaking, it has no independent constitutional standing outside of the rights of the people who own it and they already have the right as citizens to contribute and spend on campaigns. The idea now being promoted that CEOs have a First Amendment right to take other people's money out of corporate treasuries to spend on politics is outlandish.

 

[Correll]

Every individual stockholder in a Corporation has every right to express him or herself- and to spend his or her money doing so.

Corporations are not people- or at least they should not be treated as people- we do not allow Corporations to vote- nor should we allow them to pay to influence elections. Individuals can vote- and individuals can express themselves quite fine- and if individuals break the law they can go to jail for doing so.

But corporations can't.

A corporation is a very ingenuous legal construct for obtaining profit without any individual responsibility. A corporation should not be treated as an individual in any way because it is not an individual.

WHy not?

A corporation is not now, nor has it ever been, a constitutional person with voting rights; it is not, not has it ever been, a democratic citizen; nor has it ever been a constituent member of "We the People " The founders did not mention the word "corporation" in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and only a handful of corporations were even in existence at the time the Constitution was written.

A corporation isn't a membership organization but an "artificial entity," as the Supreme Court has called it, chartered by either the state or federal governments to serve public purposes. Legally speaking, it has no independent constitutional standing outside of the rights of the people who own it and they already have the right as citizens to contribute and spend on campaigns. The idea now being promoted that CEOs have a First Amendment right to take other people's money out of corporate treasuries to spend on politics is outlandish.

Funny, you left out that Corporations are allowed to own property, sign contracts and are required to pay taxes.

Legally speaking.

Taxing "entities" that are not even allowed to complain about their taxes.

A liberal's dream.

Corporations have no need to complain, their lobbyist take care of that.

"Need"? Rights are suddenly about "Need"?

Interesting.

That follows the lib believe that Rights are granted by the Government instead of God.

Thus, you can pick and choose who gets what.

 

[Correll]

You seem to be missing the connection between all the democratically appointed judges who believe that, and who made it the law of the land, and those Democrats who appointed them because of their beliefs.

Yes. This is a negative fact that can be legitimately used against Trump.

But if this is a negative fact that can be legitimately be used against Trump it is also a negative fact that can be used against every Democratic Candidate.

One gop appointed Justice sided with injustice in this case. ALL of the Democratically appointed Justices were there with him.

So, as an issue in the election, it is a wash. Because you can either vote for Trump, who would might appoint a justice who supports such abuse of Government Power, or you can vote for the Dem who will certainly appoint someone who supports such an abuse of Government Power.

A) I am not a Democrat
B) Bernie Sanders is taking ZERO cash from any corps & STILL getting his voice heard
C) Since the Citizen's United ruling - he has intro'd legislation no less than 3x trying to overturn it, & has stated that issue would be part of the litmus test for a SC appointee. THAT is one reason why I am voting for him should he make it all the way to nomination.
D) I am pretty certain that Sanders would not favor that kind (eminent domain abuse) of 'Government Involvement'.

a) Socialist or commie? Either way you're voting Democrat, are you not?

b) Good for him.

c) Good for him again, but if he appoints Judges from the Left side of the Ideological Divide he is likely to be appointing a Justice that will then vote like the other dem appointed Justices, ie for government power.

d) I'm sure Ronald Reagan wouldn't either, and yet Kennedy the Rat did.

I am an Indie. I've voted enough times for (R) & just like my siggy says... they are no longer the party of true republicans but a bunch of religious fanatical RWNJs. Nowadays, Reagan would be considered a lefty by the GOP's standards. Oh how forgetful they have all become concerning Saint Ronny.

Another strong issue with me & the reason why I won't be voting (R) is the possibility of the SC overturning Roe v Wade.

You wanna talk about 'government involvement'? When it comes to denying a woman's autonomy... that would be THE ULTIMATE in 'government involvement'.

Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question.

Roe v Wade is only about a "woman's autonomy" if you assume as a premise that the fetus/unborn child is not a person with no rights.

It's ALL about a woman's autonomy, & it's not a premise.

'smaller less intrusive' government.... but with conditions, when it suits *you*

someone has to have that final right & decision & you just answered that it's 'Uncle Sam'.

I just explained who that opinion is based on the assumption that your opinion is right.

If it is not, then there is another person who's rights need to be considered.

You just repeated your opinion without addressing my point at all.

LIbs generally have very closed minds.

 

[Correll]

So, instead you want to shut them up, so you can craft policy that targets them and their wealth, which is actually the wealth of stockholders, many though retirement plans and you can take their money and use it for your agenda with less effort.

The real answer is to the problems of politicians for sale is to vote out the politicians who are for sale.

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth so you can justify your own position?

I'd like to see campaign reform that takes ALL outside $ away from the election process, especially PACs. I would like to see the playing field leveled to give EVERYONE... (D)s (R)s & Indies an equal footing & an equal chance for election & may the BEST person for the job actually win.. not who had the most cashish to buy their way into political office.

What a radical concept 'eh?

LOL.

Sounds like a plan guaranteed to cut out any true outsiders forever.

Not if everybody (career pols or not) has the same amount of cash. That's the beauty of it.

As long as the rule enforcers were honest and unbiased.

Oops.

So throw tons of money at elections - that'll keep things honest.

I trust random chance, chaotic free speech and the decision making of the voters more than some government bureaucrat.

Are you talking about government funded campaigns?

 

[playtime]

A) I am not a Democrat
B) Bernie Sanders is taking ZERO cash from any corps & STILL getting his voice heard
C) Since the Citizen's United ruling - he has intro'd legislation no less than 3x trying to overturn it, & has stated that issue would be part of the litmus test for a SC appointee. THAT is one reason why I am voting for him should he make it all the way to nomination.
D) I am pretty certain that Sanders would not favor that kind (eminent domain abuse) of 'Government Involvement'.

a) Socialist or commie? Either way you're voting Democrat, are you not?

b) Good for him.

c) Good for him again, but if he appoints Judges from the Left side of the Ideological Divide he is likely to be appointing a Justice that will then vote like the other dem appointed Justices, ie for government power.

d) I'm sure Ronald Reagan wouldn't either, and yet Kennedy the Rat did.

I am an Indie. I've voted enough times for (R) & just like my siggy says... they are no longer the party of true republicans but a bunch of religious fanatical RWNJs. Nowadays, Reagan would be considered a lefty by the GOP's standards. Oh how forgetful they have all become concerning Saint Ronny.

Another strong issue with me & the reason why I won't be voting (R) is the possibility of the SC overturning Roe v Wade.

You wanna talk about 'government involvement'? When it comes to denying a woman's autonomy... that would be THE ULTIMATE in 'government involvement'.

Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question.

Roe v Wade is only about a "woman's autonomy" if you assume as a premise that the fetus/unborn child is not a person with no rights.

It's ALL about a woman's autonomy, & it's not a premise.

'smaller less intrusive' government.... but with conditions, when it suits *you*

someone has to have that final right & decision & you just answered that it's 'Uncle Sam'.

I just explained who that opinion is based on the assumption that your opinion is right.

If it is not, then there is another person who's rights need to be considered.

You just repeated your opinion without addressing my point at all.

LIbs generally have very closed minds.

I don't believe that anybody has the right to tell me my body isn't mine & as long as that embryo/fetus isn't viable outside my body- the decision is mine to make what I want to do about it.

That is all that needs to be said.

I lean left, but I am not a liberal. You enjoy being wrong a lot.

 

[playtime]

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth so you can justify your own position?

I'd like to see campaign reform that takes ALL outside $ away from the election process, especially PACs. I would like to see the playing field leveled to give EVERYONE... (D)s (R)s & Indies an equal footing & an equal chance for election & may the BEST person for the job actually win.. not who had the most cashish to buy their way into political office.

What a radical concept 'eh?

LOL.

Sounds like a plan guaranteed to cut out any true outsiders forever.

Not if everybody (career pols or not) has the same amount of cash. That's the beauty of it.

As long as the rule enforcers were honest and unbiased.

Oops.

So throw tons of money at elections - that'll keep things honest.

I trust random chance, chaotic free speech and the decision making of the voters more than some government bureaucrat.

Are you talking about government funded campaigns?

That would be campaign finance reform. I am talking about the same amt of given for every to who wants to run & how well & effective it is spent getting out their message about the issues is totally on them. I doubt most of it spent will not be on negative bullshit ads & phone calls.