Country First???

[Ambivalent1]

Democrats have become "indigenous invaders" within their own country.

One wonders if they see the writing on the wall.

White americans would do well to review this power structure’s history with respect to the indigenous peoples of the Americas. That’s your future. You're not special. Your role as a societal buffer between the aristocracy and the rabble has been made redundant, you are no longer required, you are of the rabble yourselves.

Do tell Shaka?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Face the facts, the Republican Party has gone so far down the hole, it will never be able to climb out until the current leadership leaves office.

Hate and fear will only take a party so far and crying wolf only fools some of the people all of the time; wedge issues work all of the time but only to the benefit of the few, and those few will one day understand they are the rubes once referred to as suckers born every minute. The GOP has no intention to make their live blood go away.

BTW, these ^^^ are not the way to recruit young, intelligent and savvy "young republicans" in the 21st Century. Talking points, wedge issues and false claims are no longer an effective means to win elections, when they are so easily mocked by inactivity, lies and likely impossible promises.

And yet even this week the GOP and some fellow travelers are proving they cannot learn from the most recent experience, the Blue and Pink wave. They still use character assassination and lies, since they seem unable to recognize the truth.

Recent example: RNC Misleads on ‘Immoral’ Democratic Bill - FactCheck.org

Explain how anything you described is any different than the way you and your party act, hack. You're party first and country second, but it's somehow different when you use talking points, wedge issues, and false claims to do it, right?

First and foremost we need to define who used the two-word phrase and in what context.

I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies. No thought as to what it meant or how they might govern was intended, since they never explained.

The way I interpret "Country First" goes back to the 18th Century, when the Preamble was promulgated in 1788 and when the Ninth State Ratified COTUS.

I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future, to wit:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.

Real Republicans have begun to speak out, the real RINO's are those who support Trump and the swamp in which he and his family reside.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Face the facts, the Republican Party has gone so far down the hole, it will never be able to climb out until the current leadership leaves office.

Hate and fear will only take a party so far and crying wolf only fools some of the people all of the time; wedge issues work all of the time but only to the benefit of the few, and those few will one day understand they are the rubes once referred to as suckers born every minute. The GOP has no intention to make their live blood go away.

BTW, these ^^^ are not the way to recruit young, intelligent and savvy "young republicans" in the 21st Century. Talking points, wedge issues and false claims are no longer an effective means to win elections, when they are so easily mocked by inactivity, lies and likely impossible promises.

And yet even this week the GOP and some fellow travelers are proving they cannot learn from the most recent experience, the Blue and Pink wave. They still use character assassination and lies, since they seem unable to recognize the truth.

Recent example: RNC Misleads on ‘Immoral’ Democratic Bill - FactCheck.org

Yea, "country first" doesn't mean Mexico...dumbass.

An idiot-gram doesn't respond to the point of the thread, typical of a dumbass conservative.

Gee, my bad...sure looks like the title of this thread says "Country First???"

It is, dumbass, since I posted the thread. Get you head out of your ass and look up the word sagacious. That is not what you and Trump use to convince any thinker of how to secure our borders. How stupid you people are is simply amazing.

Yup, didn't see "sagacious" in your post either.....WTF, are you clowns moving the goalpost again?

Maybe you need to do some research, keeping your head up your ass seems to blind you to everything but what's in there.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Face the facts, the Republican Party has gone so far down the hole, it will never be able to climb out until the current leadership leaves office.

Hate and fear will only take a party so far and crying wolf only fools some of the people all of the time; wedge issues work all of the time but only to the benefit of the few, and those few will one day understand they are the rubes once referred to as suckers born every minute. The GOP has no intention to make their live blood go away.

BTW, these ^^^ are not the way to recruit young, intelligent and savvy "young republicans" in the 21st Century. Talking points, wedge issues and false claims are no longer an effective means to win elections, when they are so easily mocked by inactivity, lies and likely impossible promises.

And yet even this week the GOP and some fellow travelers are proving they cannot learn from the most recent experience, the Blue and Pink wave. They still use character assassination and lies, since they seem unable to recognize the truth.

Recent example: RNC Misleads on ‘Immoral’ Democratic Bill - FactCheck.org

Explain how anything you described is any different than the way you and your party act, hack. You're party first and country second, but it's somehow different when you use talking points, wedge issues, and false claims to do it, right?

First and foremost we need to define who used the two-word phrase and in what context.

I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies. No thought as to what it meant or how they might govern was intended, since they never explained.

The way I interpret "Country First" goes back to the 18th Century, when the Preamble was promulgated in 1788 and when the Ninth State Ratified COTUS.

I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future, to wit:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,
Real Republicans have begun to speak out, the real RINO's are those who support Trump and the swamp in which he and his family reside.

"I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies."

"I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

"
I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

Conjecture and personal opinions. I always wonder how people like you get such a high opinion of yourself, your partisan views render the things you type invalid.

 

[danielpalos]

Face the facts, the Republican Party has gone so far down the hole, it will never be able to climb out until the current leadership leaves office.

Hate and fear will only take a party so far and crying wolf only fools some of the people all of the time; wedge issues work all of the time but only to the benefit of the few, and those few will one day understand they are the rubes once referred to as suckers born every minute. The GOP has no intention to make their live blood go away.

BTW, these ^^^ are not the way to recruit young, intelligent and savvy "young republicans" in the 21st Century. Talking points, wedge issues and false claims are no longer an effective means to win elections, when they are so easily mocked by inactivity, lies and likely impossible promises.

And yet even this week the GOP and some fellow travelers are proving they cannot learn from the most recent experience, the Blue and Pink wave. They still use character assassination and lies, since they seem unable to recognize the truth.

Recent example: RNC Misleads on ‘Immoral’ Democratic Bill - FactCheck.org

the right wing alleges gospel truthfulness and morality simply Because they are on the right wing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Face the facts, the Republican Party has gone so far down the hole, it will never be able to climb out until the current leadership leaves office.

Hate and fear will only take a party so far and crying wolf only fools some of the people all of the time; wedge issues work all of the time but only to the benefit of the few, and those few will one day understand they are the rubes once referred to as suckers born every minute. The GOP has no intention to make their live blood go away.

BTW, these ^^^ are not the way to recruit young, intelligent and savvy "young republicans" in the 21st Century. Talking points, wedge issues and false claims are no longer an effective means to win elections, when they are so easily mocked by inactivity, lies and likely impossible promises.

And yet even this week the GOP and some fellow travelers are proving they cannot learn from the most recent experience, the Blue and Pink wave. They still use character assassination and lies, since they seem unable to recognize the truth.

Recent example: RNC Misleads on ‘Immoral’ Democratic Bill - FactCheck.org

Explain how anything you described is any different than the way you and your party act, hack. You're party first and country second, but it's somehow different when you use talking points, wedge issues, and false claims to do it, right?

First and foremost we need to define who used the two-word phrase and in what context.

I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies. No thought as to what it meant or how they might govern was intended, since they never explained.

The way I interpret "Country First" goes back to the 18th Century, when the Preamble was promulgated in 1788 and when the Ninth State Ratified COTUS.

I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future, to wit:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,
Real Republicans have begun to speak out, the real RINO's are those who support Trump and the swamp in which he and his family reside.

"I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies."

"I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

"
I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

Conjecture and personal opinions. I always wonder how people like you get such a high opinion of yourself, your partisan views render the things you type invalid.

Oh the irony, your remark is not a rebuttal, it is an idiot-gram wrapped in an ad hominem by a hypocrite. What do you think, oh, excuse me, what do you believe a political message board thrives on if not personal opinions and conjecture?

Putting aside the asshole within your comment - your claim I have a high opinion of myself - I'm reminded of the phrase, "In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man king". I'm educated, and realize that the more I learn the less I know - which is probably too abstract for you to comprehend; I passed both the SAT well enough to attend CAL and graduate, and tha LSAT well enough to be accepted to two law schools (which I did not enroll in as I chose a different career path).

So, what do you think (lol) of the Preamble and why was it part of COTUS? For once, try to think outside the box in which you seem to be hopelessly stuck.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Face the facts, the Republican Party has gone so far down the hole, it will never be able to climb out until the current leadership leaves office.

Hate and fear will only take a party so far and crying wolf only fools some of the people all of the time; wedge issues work all of the time but only to the benefit of the few, and those few will one day understand they are the rubes once referred to as suckers born every minute. The GOP has no intention to make their live blood go away.

BTW, these ^^^ are not the way to recruit young, intelligent and savvy "young republicans" in the 21st Century. Talking points, wedge issues and false claims are no longer an effective means to win elections, when they are so easily mocked by inactivity, lies and likely impossible promises.

And yet even this week the GOP and some fellow travelers are proving they cannot learn from the most recent experience, the Blue and Pink wave. They still use character assassination and lies, since they seem unable to recognize the truth.

Recent example: RNC Misleads on ‘Immoral’ Democratic Bill - FactCheck.org

Explain how anything you described is any different than the way you and your party act, hack. You're party first and country second, but it's somehow different when you use talking points, wedge issues, and false claims to do it, right?

First and foremost we need to define who used the two-word phrase and in what context.

I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies. No thought as to what it meant or how they might govern was intended, since they never explained.

The way I interpret "Country First" goes back to the 18th Century, when the Preamble was promulgated in 1788 and when the Ninth State Ratified COTUS.

I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future, to wit:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,
Real Republicans have begun to speak out, the real RINO's are those who support Trump and the swamp in which he and his family reside.

"I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies."

"I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

"
I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

Conjecture and personal opinions. I always wonder how people like you get such a high opinion of yourself, your partisan views render the things you type invalid.

Oh the irony, your remark is not a rebuttal, it is an idiot-gram wrapped in an ad hominem by a hypocrite. What do you think, oh, excuse me, what do you believe a political message board thrives on if not personal opinions and conjecture?

Putting aside the asshole within your comment - your claim I have a high opinion of myself - I'm reminded of the phrase, "In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man king". I'm educated, and realize that the more I learn the less I know - which is probably too abstract for you to comprehend; I passed both the SAT well enough to attend CAL and graduate, and tha LSAT well enough to be accepted to two law schools (which I did not enroll in as I chose a different career path).

So, what do you think (lol) of the Preamble and why was it part of COTUS? For once, try to think outside the box in which you seem to be hopelessly stuck.

LOL, to you an "idiot gram" is anything anyone says to challenge your "opinions". You don't get to define what is and isn't a "Republican". There is an asshole in every post you make but YOUR assholery is just fine because you think everything you think is correct

Now, unlike yourself (you need to project your own interpretation into any given discussion). Me? I'll rely upon what the Founders themselves had to say about it.

"The novelty of the undertaking immediately strikes us. It has been shewn in the course of these papers, that the existing Confederation is founded on principles which are fallacious; that we must consequently change this first foundation, and with it, the superstructure resting upon it. It has been shewn, that the other confederacies which could be consulted as precedents, have been viciated by the same erroneous principles, and can therefore furnish no other light than that of beacons, which give warning of the course to be shunned, without pointing out that which ought to be pursued. The most that the Convention could do in such a situation, was to avoid the errors suggested by the past experience of other countries, as well as of our own; and to provide a convenient mode of rectifying their own errors, as future experience may unfold them."

Preamble: James Madison, Federalist, no. 37, 233--39

The preamble is the foundation by which one should "interpret" what follows, it tells you how to view it and how to apply what the entirety of the document that follows was purposed to be understood. You don't have a clue as to what you don't know son. You have a stunted, myopic view of the world. You are limited to the way your "education" has told you to view things. Much of the educational system has been designed to stunt/close your mind. I don't believe that you are bright enough to ever be able to break out of your intellectual shackles.

 

[Slyhunter]

No immigration until ever American who wants a job has a job that pays a living wage.

 

[Claudette]

Face the facts, the Republican Party has gone so far down the hole, it will never be able to climb out until the current leadership leaves office.

Hate and fear will only take a party so far and crying wolf only fools some of the people all of the time; wedge issues work all of the time but only to the benefit of the few, and those few will one day understand they are the rubes once referred to as suckers born every minute. The GOP has no intention to make their live blood go away.

BTW, these ^^^ are not the way to recruit young, intelligent and savvy "young republicans" in the 21st Century. Talking points, wedge issues and false claims are no longer an effective means to win elections, when they are so easily mocked by inactivity, lies and likely impossible promises.

And yet even this week the GOP and some fellow travelers are proving they cannot learn from the most recent experience, the Blue and Pink wave. They still use character assassination and lies, since they seem unable to recognize the truth.

Recent example: RNC Misleads on ‘Immoral’ Democratic Bill - FactCheck.org

Explain how anything you described is any different than the way you and your party act, hack. You're party first and country second, but it's somehow different when you use talking points, wedge issues, and false claims to do it, right?

First and foremost we need to define who used the two-word phrase and in what context.

I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies. No thought as to what it meant or how they might govern was intended, since they never explained.

The way I interpret "Country First" goes back to the 18th Century, when the Preamble was promulgated in 1788 and when the Ninth State Ratified COTUS.

I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future, to wit:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,
Real Republicans have begun to speak out, the real RINO's are those who support Trump and the swamp in which he and his family reside.

"I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies."

"I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

"
I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

Conjecture and personal opinions. I always wonder how people like you get such a high opinion of yourself, your partisan views render the things you type invalid.

Yup. She's high on her self all right and posts her drivel non stop. And she is hyper partisan. A lefty loon of the first order.

I laugh at her posts and tell her to blow it out her ass. Then she complains. Lefty loon to the max.

 

[Claudette]

Face the facts, the Republican Party has gone so far down the hole, it will never be able to climb out until the current leadership leaves office.

Hate and fear will only take a party so far and crying wolf only fools some of the people all of the time; wedge issues work all of the time but only to the benefit of the few, and those few will one day understand they are the rubes once referred to as suckers born every minute. The GOP has no intention to make their live blood go away.

BTW, these ^^^ are not the way to recruit young, intelligent and savvy "young republicans" in the 21st Century. Talking points, wedge issues and false claims are no longer an effective means to win elections, when they are so easily mocked by inactivity, lies and likely impossible promises.

And yet even this week the GOP and some fellow travelers are proving they cannot learn from the most recent experience, the Blue and Pink wave. They still use character assassination and lies, since they seem unable to recognize the truth.

Recent example: RNC Misleads on ‘Immoral’ Democratic Bill - FactCheck.org

Explain how anything you described is any different than the way you and your party act, hack. You're party first and country second, but it's somehow different when you use talking points, wedge issues, and false claims to do it, right?

First and foremost we need to define who used the two-word phrase and in what context.

I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies. No thought as to what it meant or how they might govern was intended, since they never explained.

The way I interpret "Country First" goes back to the 18th Century, when the Preamble was promulgated in 1788 and when the Ninth State Ratified COTUS.

I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future, to wit:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,
Real Republicans have begun to speak out, the real RINO's are those who support Trump and the swamp in which he and his family reside.

"I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies."

"I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

"
I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

Conjecture and personal opinions. I always wonder how people like you get such a high opinion of yourself, your partisan views render the things you type invalid.

Oh the irony, your remark is not a rebuttal, it is an idiot-gram wrapped in an ad hominem by a hypocrite. What do you think, oh, excuse me, what do you believe a political message board thrives on if not personal opinions and conjecture?

Putting aside the asshole within your comment - your claim I have a high opinion of myself - I'm reminded of the phrase, "In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man king". I'm educated, and realize that the more I learn the less I know - which is probably too abstract for you to comprehend; I passed both the SAT well enough to attend CAL and graduate, and tha LSAT well enough to be accepted to two law schools (which I did not enroll in as I chose a different career path).

So, what do you think (lol) of the Preamble and why was it part of COTUS? For once, try to think outside the box in which you seem to be hopelessly stuck.

LOL, to you an "idiot gram" is anything anyone says to challenge your "opinions". You don't get to define what is and isn't a "Republican". There is an asshole in every post you make but YOUR assholery is just fine because you think everything you think is correct

Now, unlike yourself (you need to project your own interpretation into any given discussion). Me? I'll rely upon what the Founders themselves had to say about it.

"The novelty of the undertaking immediately strikes us. It has been shewn in the course of these papers, that the existing Confederation is founded on principles which are fallacious; that we must consequently change this first foundation, and with it, the superstructure resting upon it. It has been shewn, that the other confederacies which could be consulted as precedents, have been viciated by the same erroneous principles, and can therefore furnish no other light than that of beacons, which give warning of the course to be shunned, without pointing out that which ought to be pursued. The most that the Convention could do in such a situation, was to avoid the errors suggested by the past experience of other countries, as well as of our own; and to provide a convenient mode of rectifying their own errors, as future experience may unfold them."

Preamble: James Madison, Federalist, no. 37, 233--39

The preamble is the foundation by which one should "interpret" what follows, it tells you how to view it and how to apply what the entirety of the document that follows was purposed to be understood. You don't have a clue as to what you don't know son. You have a stunted, myopic view of the world. You are limited to the way your "education" has told you to view things. Much of the educational system has been designed to stunt/close your mind. I don't believe that you are bright enough to ever be able to break out of your intellectual shackles.

LMAO Now you've done it.

You went and threw the Federalist Papers at her stupid ass.

I'd bet she's never read any of the FP's. I have them all in my Kindle. LOL

 

[Ambivalent1]

Explain how anything you described is any different than the way you and your party act, hack. You're party first and country second, but it's somehow different when you use talking points, wedge issues, and false claims to do it, right?

First and foremost we need to define who used the two-word phrase and in what context.

I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies. No thought as to what it meant or how they might govern was intended, since they never explained.

The way I interpret "Country First" goes back to the 18th Century, when the Preamble was promulgated in 1788 and when the Ninth State Ratified COTUS.

I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future, to wit:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,
Real Republicans have begun to speak out, the real RINO's are those who support Trump and the swamp in which he and his family reside.

"I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies."

"I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

"
I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

Conjecture and personal opinions. I always wonder how people like you get such a high opinion of yourself, your partisan views render the things you type invalid.

Oh the irony, your remark is not a rebuttal, it is an idiot-gram wrapped in an ad hominem by a hypocrite. What do you think, oh, excuse me, what do you believe a political message board thrives on if not personal opinions and conjecture?

Putting aside the asshole within your comment - your claim I have a high opinion of myself - I'm reminded of the phrase, "In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man king". I'm educated, and realize that the more I learn the less I know - which is probably too abstract for you to comprehend; I passed both the SAT well enough to attend CAL and graduate, and tha LSAT well enough to be accepted to two law schools (which I did not enroll in as I chose a different career path).

So, what do you think (lol) of the Preamble and why was it part of COTUS? For once, try to think outside the box in which you seem to be hopelessly stuck.

LOL, to you an "idiot gram" is anything anyone says to challenge your "opinions". You don't get to define what is and isn't a "Republican". There is an asshole in every post you make but YOUR assholery is just fine because you think everything you think is correct

Now, unlike yourself (you need to project your own interpretation into any given discussion). Me? I'll rely upon what the Founders themselves had to say about it.

"The novelty of the undertaking immediately strikes us. It has been shewn in the course of these papers, that the existing Confederation is founded on principles which are fallacious; that we must consequently change this first foundation, and with it, the superstructure resting upon it. It has been shewn, that the other confederacies which could be consulted as precedents, have been viciated by the same erroneous principles, and can therefore furnish no other light than that of beacons, which give warning of the course to be shunned, without pointing out that which ought to be pursued. The most that the Convention could do in such a situation, was to avoid the errors suggested by the past experience of other countries, as well as of our own; and to provide a convenient mode of rectifying their own errors, as future experience may unfold them."

Preamble: James Madison, Federalist, no. 37, 233--39

The preamble is the foundation by which one should "interpret" what follows, it tells you how to view it and how to apply what the entirety of the document that follows was purposed to be understood. You don't have a clue as to what you don't know son. You have a stunted, myopic view of the world. You are limited to the way your "education" has told you to view things. Much of the educational system has been designed to stunt/close your mind. I don't believe that you are bright enough to ever be able to break out of your intellectual shackles.

LMAO Now you've done it.

You went and threw the Federalist Papers at her stupid ass.

I'd bet she's never read any of the FP's. I have them all in my Kindle. LOL

The papers don't allow them claim that it is a "Living Document". It MAKES them face the truth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Face the facts, the Republican Party has gone so far down the hole, it will never be able to climb out until the current leadership leaves office.

Hate and fear will only take a party so far and crying wolf only fools some of the people all of the time; wedge issues work all of the time but only to the benefit of the few, and those few will one day understand they are the rubes once referred to as suckers born every minute. The GOP has no intention to make their live blood go away.

BTW, these ^^^ are not the way to recruit young, intelligent and savvy "young republicans" in the 21st Century. Talking points, wedge issues and false claims are no longer an effective means to win elections, when they are so easily mocked by inactivity, lies and likely impossible promises.

And yet even this week the GOP and some fellow travelers are proving they cannot learn from the most recent experience, the Blue and Pink wave. They still use character assassination and lies, since they seem unable to recognize the truth.

Recent example: RNC Misleads on ‘Immoral’ Democratic Bill - FactCheck.org

You're saying RBG should put country first and step down?! Bravo!!

 

[Claudette]

First and foremost we need to define who used the two-word phrase and in what context.

I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies. No thought as to what it meant or how they might govern was intended, since they never explained.

The way I interpret "Country First" goes back to the 18th Century, when the Preamble was promulgated in 1788 and when the Ninth State Ratified COTUS.

I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future, to wit:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,
Real Republicans have begun to speak out, the real RINO's are those who support Trump and the swamp in which he and his family reside.

"I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies."

"I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

"
I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

Conjecture and personal opinions. I always wonder how people like you get such a high opinion of yourself, your partisan views render the things you type invalid.

Oh the irony, your remark is not a rebuttal, it is an idiot-gram wrapped in an ad hominem by a hypocrite. What do you think, oh, excuse me, what do you believe a political message board thrives on if not personal opinions and conjecture?

Putting aside the asshole within your comment - your claim I have a high opinion of myself - I'm reminded of the phrase, "In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man king". I'm educated, and realize that the more I learn the less I know - which is probably too abstract for you to comprehend; I passed both the SAT well enough to attend CAL and graduate, and tha LSAT well enough to be accepted to two law schools (which I did not enroll in as I chose a different career path).

So, what do you think (lol) of the Preamble and why was it part of COTUS? For once, try to think outside the box in which you seem to be hopelessly stuck.

LOL, to you an "idiot gram" is anything anyone says to challenge your "opinions". You don't get to define what is and isn't a "Republican". There is an asshole in every post you make but YOUR assholery is just fine because you think everything you think is correct

Now, unlike yourself (you need to project your own interpretation into any given discussion). Me? I'll rely upon what the Founders themselves had to say about it.

"The novelty of the undertaking immediately strikes us. It has been shewn in the course of these papers, that the existing Confederation is founded on principles which are fallacious; that we must consequently change this first foundation, and with it, the superstructure resting upon it. It has been shewn, that the other confederacies which could be consulted as precedents, have been viciated by the same erroneous principles, and can therefore furnish no other light than that of beacons, which give warning of the course to be shunned, without pointing out that which ought to be pursued. The most that the Convention could do in such a situation, was to avoid the errors suggested by the past experience of other countries, as well as of our own; and to provide a convenient mode of rectifying their own errors, as future experience may unfold them."

Preamble: James Madison, Federalist, no. 37, 233--39

The preamble is the foundation by which one should "interpret" what follows, it tells you how to view it and how to apply what the entirety of the document that follows was purposed to be understood. You don't have a clue as to what you don't know son. You have a stunted, myopic view of the world. You are limited to the way your "education" has told you to view things. Much of the educational system has been designed to stunt/close your mind. I don't believe that you are bright enough to ever be able to break out of your intellectual shackles.

LMAO Now you've done it.

You went and threw the Federalist Papers at her stupid ass.

I'd bet she's never read any of the FP's. I have them all in my Kindle. LOL

The papers don't allow them claim that it is a "Living Document". It MAKES them face the truth.

Oh and notice she's disappeared??

The truth hurts ya know. LOL

 

[Ambivalent1]

"I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies."

"I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

"
I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

Conjecture and personal opinions. I always wonder how people like you get such a high opinion of yourself, your partisan views render the things you type invalid.

Oh the irony, your remark is not a rebuttal, it is an idiot-gram wrapped in an ad hominem by a hypocrite. What do you think, oh, excuse me, what do you believe a political message board thrives on if not personal opinions and conjecture?

Putting aside the asshole within your comment - your claim I have a high opinion of myself - I'm reminded of the phrase, "In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man king". I'm educated, and realize that the more I learn the less I know - which is probably too abstract for you to comprehend; I passed both the SAT well enough to attend CAL and graduate, and tha LSAT well enough to be accepted to two law schools (which I did not enroll in as I chose a different career path).

So, what do you think (lol) of the Preamble and why was it part of COTUS? For once, try to think outside the box in which you seem to be hopelessly stuck.

LOL, to you an "idiot gram" is anything anyone says to challenge your "opinions". You don't get to define what is and isn't a "Republican". There is an asshole in every post you make but YOUR assholery is just fine because you think everything you think is correct

Now, unlike yourself (you need to project your own interpretation into any given discussion). Me? I'll rely upon what the Founders themselves had to say about it.

"The novelty of the undertaking immediately strikes us. It has been shewn in the course of these papers, that the existing Confederation is founded on principles which are fallacious; that we must consequently change this first foundation, and with it, the superstructure resting upon it. It has been shewn, that the other confederacies which could be consulted as precedents, have been viciated by the same erroneous principles, and can therefore furnish no other light than that of beacons, which give warning of the course to be shunned, without pointing out that which ought to be pursued. The most that the Convention could do in such a situation, was to avoid the errors suggested by the past experience of other countries, as well as of our own; and to provide a convenient mode of rectifying their own errors, as future experience may unfold them."

Preamble: James Madison, Federalist, no. 37, 233--39

The preamble is the foundation by which one should "interpret" what follows, it tells you how to view it and how to apply what the entirety of the document that follows was purposed to be understood. You don't have a clue as to what you don't know son. You have a stunted, myopic view of the world. You are limited to the way your "education" has told you to view things. Much of the educational system has been designed to stunt/close your mind. I don't believe that you are bright enough to ever be able to break out of your intellectual shackles.

LMAO Now you've done it.

You went and threw the Federalist Papers at her stupid ass.

I'd bet she's never read any of the FP's. I have them all in my Kindle. LOL

The papers don't allow them claim that it is a "Living Document". It MAKES them face the truth.

Oh and notice she's disappeared??

The truth hurts ya know. LOL

Facts are funny things.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Face the facts, the Republican Party has gone so far down the hole, it will never be able to climb out until the current leadership leaves office.

Hate and fear will only take a party so far and crying wolf only fools some of the people all of the time; wedge issues work all of the time but only to the benefit of the few, and those few will one day understand they are the rubes once referred to as suckers born every minute. The GOP has no intention to make their live blood go away.

BTW, these ^^^ are not the way to recruit young, intelligent and savvy "young republicans" in the 21st Century. Talking points, wedge issues and false claims are no longer an effective means to win elections, when they are so easily mocked by inactivity, lies and likely impossible promises.

And yet even this week the GOP and some fellow travelers are proving they cannot learn from the most recent experience, the Blue and Pink wave. They still use character assassination and lies, since they seem unable to recognize the truth.

Recent example: RNC Misleads on ‘Immoral’ Democratic Bill - FactCheck.org

Explain how anything you described is any different than the way you and your party act, hack. You're party first and country second, but it's somehow different when you use talking points, wedge issues, and false claims to do it, right?

First and foremost we need to define who used the two-word phrase and in what context.

I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies. No thought as to what it meant or how they might govern was intended, since they never explained.

The way I interpret "Country First" goes back to the 18th Century, when the Preamble was promulgated in 1788 and when the Ninth State Ratified COTUS.

I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future, to wit:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,
Real Republicans have begun to speak out, the real RINO's are those who support Trump and the swamp in which he and his family reside.

"I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies."

"I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

"
I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

Conjecture and personal opinions. I always wonder how people like you get such a high opinion of yourself, your partisan views render the things you type invalid.

Oh the irony, your remark is not a rebuttal, it is an idiot-gram wrapped in an ad hominem by a hypocrite. What do you think, oh, excuse me, what do you believe a political message board thrives on if not personal opinions and conjecture?

Putting aside the asshole within your comment - your claim I have a high opinion of myself - I'm reminded of the phrase, "In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man king". I'm educated, and realize that the more I learn the less I know - which is probably too abstract for you to comprehend; I passed both the SAT well enough to attend CAL and graduate, and tha LSAT well enough to be accepted to two law schools (which I did not enroll in as I chose a different career path).

So, what do you think (lol) of the Preamble and why was it part of COTUS? For once, try to think outside the box in which you seem to be hopelessly stuck.

LOL, to you an "idiot gram" is anything anyone says to challenge your "opinions". You don't get to define what is and isn't a "Republican". There is an asshole in every post you make but YOUR assholery is just fine because you think everything you think is correct

Now, unlike yourself (you need to project your own interpretation into any given discussion). Me? I'll rely upon what the Founders themselves had to say about it.

"The novelty of the undertaking immediately strikes us. It has been shewn in the course of these papers, that the existing Confederation is founded on principles which are fallacious; that we must consequently change this first foundation, and with it, the superstructure resting upon it. It has been shewn, that the other confederacies which could be consulted as precedents, have been viciated by the same erroneous principles, and can therefore furnish no other light than that of beacons, which give warning of the course to be shunned, without pointing out that which ought to be pursued. The most that the Convention could do in such a situation, was to avoid the errors suggested by the past experience of other countries, as well as of our own; and to provide a convenient mode of rectifying their own errors, as future experience may unfold them."

Preamble: James Madison, Federalist, no. 37, 233--39

The preamble is the foundation by which one should "interpret" what follows, it tells you how to view it and how to apply what the entirety of the document that follows was purposed to be understood. You don't have a clue as to what you don't know son. You have a stunted, myopic view of the world. You are limited to the way your "education" has told you to view things. Much of the educational system has been designed to stunt/close your mind. I don't believe that you are bright enough to ever be able to break out of your intellectual shackles.

"LOL, to you an "idiot gram" is anything anyone says to challenge your "opinions".

This is your opinion; you are really not very bright - my opinion, based on the evidence in your first sentence)

I'm not going to waste my time reading The Federalist, you posted it, post the sentence where it disproves my post.

Even that will prove nothing, Madison was overruled by the Supreme Court in his opinion on Marbury, and even if one is to believe whatever is in your link, it is NOT written anywhere in COTUS. In fact, as you wrote,

"The preamble is the foundation by which one should "interpret" what follows, it tells you how to view it and how to apply what the entirety of the document that follows was purposed to be understood"

Therefore there is not doubt Trump and the GOP do not support and defend COTUS since there is no indication during the past two years that they support,

forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

For every point you might try to refute each of these values, I'll post an action by the current administration and the Congress under McConnell and Ryan to prove my point.

• Consider if you will, McConnell's nonfeasance in the Senate's duty to vote on a President's nominee for the Supreme Court
• The EO's by the President to break apart family units when the children were born and native citizens and one parent entered the US 20 years before and was deported for a minor infraction
• The efforts by the GOP to deny equal opportunity and equal rights to gay and lesbian citizens, to join our military, marry or have a cake made for their wedding.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Explain how anything you described is any different than the way you and your party act, hack. You're party first and country second, but it's somehow different when you use talking points, wedge issues, and false claims to do it, right?

First and foremost we need to define who used the two-word phrase and in what context.

I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies. No thought as to what it meant or how they might govern was intended, since they never explained.

The way I interpret "Country First" goes back to the 18th Century, when the Preamble was promulgated in 1788 and when the Ninth State Ratified COTUS.

I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future, to wit:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,
Real Republicans have begun to speak out, the real RINO's are those who support Trump and the swamp in which he and his family reside.

"I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies."

"I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

"
I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

Conjecture and personal opinions. I always wonder how people like you get such a high opinion of yourself, your partisan views render the things you type invalid.

Oh the irony, your remark is not a rebuttal, it is an idiot-gram wrapped in an ad hominem by a hypocrite. What do you think, oh, excuse me, what do you believe a political message board thrives on if not personal opinions and conjecture?

Putting aside the asshole within your comment - your claim I have a high opinion of myself - I'm reminded of the phrase, "In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man king". I'm educated, and realize that the more I learn the less I know - which is probably too abstract for you to comprehend; I passed both the SAT well enough to attend CAL and graduate, and tha LSAT well enough to be accepted to two law schools (which I did not enroll in as I chose a different career path).

So, what do you think (lol) of the Preamble and why was it part of COTUS? For once, try to think outside the box in which you seem to be hopelessly stuck.

LOL, to you an "idiot gram" is anything anyone says to challenge your "opinions". You don't get to define what is and isn't a "Republican". There is an asshole in every post you make but YOUR assholery is just fine because you think everything you think is correct

Now, unlike yourself (you need to project your own interpretation into any given discussion). Me? I'll rely upon what the Founders themselves had to say about it.

"The novelty of the undertaking immediately strikes us. It has been shewn in the course of these papers, that the existing Confederation is founded on principles which are fallacious; that we must consequently change this first foundation, and with it, the superstructure resting upon it. It has been shewn, that the other confederacies which could be consulted as precedents, have been viciated by the same erroneous principles, and can therefore furnish no other light than that of beacons, which give warning of the course to be shunned, without pointing out that which ought to be pursued. The most that the Convention could do in such a situation, was to avoid the errors suggested by the past experience of other countries, as well as of our own; and to provide a convenient mode of rectifying their own errors, as future experience may unfold them."

Preamble: James Madison, Federalist, no. 37, 233--39

The preamble is the foundation by which one should "interpret" what follows, it tells you how to view it and how to apply what the entirety of the document that follows was purposed to be understood. You don't have a clue as to what you don't know son. You have a stunted, myopic view of the world. You are limited to the way your "education" has told you to view things. Much of the educational system has been designed to stunt/close your mind. I don't believe that you are bright enough to ever be able to break out of your intellectual shackles.

"LOL, to you an "idiot gram" is anything anyone says to challenge your "opinions".

This is your opinion; you are really not very bright - my opinion, based on the evidence in your first sentence)

I'm not going to waste my time reading The Federalist, you posted it, post the sentence where it disproves my post.

Even that will prove nothing, Madison was overruled by the Supreme Court in his opinion on Marbury, and even if one is to believe whatever is in your link, it is NOT written anywhere in COTUS. In fact, as you wrote,

"The preamble is the foundation by which one should "interpret" what follows, it tells you how to view it and how to apply what the entirety of the document that follows was purposed to be understood"

Therefore there is not doubt Trump and the GOP do not support and defend COTUS since there is no indication during the past two years that they support,

forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

For every point you might try to refute each of these values, I'll post an action by the current administration and the Congress under McConnell and Ryan to prove my point.

• Consider if you will, McConnell's nonfeasance in the Senate's duty to vote on a President's nominee for the Supreme Court
• The EO's by the President to break apart family units when the children were born and native citizens and one parent entered the US 20 years before and was deported for a minor infraction
• The efforts by the GOP to deny equal opportunity and equal rights to gay and lesbian citizens, to join our military, marry or have a cake made for their wedding.

Exactly, you have no wish to know the truth, you only wish to pontificate about what YOU think is the truth. LOL, it tells you exactly what the preamble was designed to do and how to look at, and interpret the rest of the document. Why try and deflect from the original purpose of said preamble? Whatever Repubs and Dems are doing today has very little to with what the Constitution was meant to do. I do however acknowledge (once again) how smart you think you are. You are over compensating honey.

Oh yes, I'm not a pub.

 

[Claudette]

First and foremost we need to define who used the two-word phrase and in what context.

I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies. No thought as to what it meant or how they might govern was intended, since they never explained.

The way I interpret "Country First" goes back to the 18th Century, when the Preamble was promulgated in 1788 and when the Ninth State Ratified COTUS.

I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future, to wit:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,
Real Republicans have begun to speak out, the real RINO's are those who support Trump and the swamp in which he and his family reside.

"I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies."

"I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

"
I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

Conjecture and personal opinions. I always wonder how people like you get such a high opinion of yourself, your partisan views render the things you type invalid.

Oh the irony, your remark is not a rebuttal, it is an idiot-gram wrapped in an ad hominem by a hypocrite. What do you think, oh, excuse me, what do you believe a political message board thrives on if not personal opinions and conjecture?

Putting aside the asshole within your comment - your claim I have a high opinion of myself - I'm reminded of the phrase, "In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man king". I'm educated, and realize that the more I learn the less I know - which is probably too abstract for you to comprehend; I passed both the SAT well enough to attend CAL and graduate, and tha LSAT well enough to be accepted to two law schools (which I did not enroll in as I chose a different career path).

So, what do you think (lol) of the Preamble and why was it part of COTUS? For once, try to think outside the box in which you seem to be hopelessly stuck.

LOL, to you an "idiot gram" is anything anyone says to challenge your "opinions". You don't get to define what is and isn't a "Republican". There is an asshole in every post you make but YOUR assholery is just fine because you think everything you think is correct

Now, unlike yourself (you need to project your own interpretation into any given discussion). Me? I'll rely upon what the Founders themselves had to say about it.

"The novelty of the undertaking immediately strikes us. It has been shewn in the course of these papers, that the existing Confederation is founded on principles which are fallacious; that we must consequently change this first foundation, and with it, the superstructure resting upon it. It has been shewn, that the other confederacies which could be consulted as precedents, have been viciated by the same erroneous principles, and can therefore furnish no other light than that of beacons, which give warning of the course to be shunned, without pointing out that which ought to be pursued. The most that the Convention could do in such a situation, was to avoid the errors suggested by the past experience of other countries, as well as of our own; and to provide a convenient mode of rectifying their own errors, as future experience may unfold them."

Preamble: James Madison, Federalist, no. 37, 233--39

The preamble is the foundation by which one should "interpret" what follows, it tells you how to view it and how to apply what the entirety of the document that follows was purposed to be understood. You don't have a clue as to what you don't know son. You have a stunted, myopic view of the world. You are limited to the way your "education" has told you to view things. Much of the educational system has been designed to stunt/close your mind. I don't believe that you are bright enough to ever be able to break out of your intellectual shackles.

"LOL, to you an "idiot gram" is anything anyone says to challenge your "opinions".

This is your opinion; you are really not very bright - my opinion, based on the evidence in your first sentence)

I'm not going to waste my time reading The Federalist, you posted it, post the sentence where it disproves my post.

Even that will prove nothing, Madison was overruled by the Supreme Court in his opinion on Marbury, and even if one is to believe whatever is in your link, it is NOT written anywhere in COTUS. In fact, as you wrote,

"The preamble is the foundation by which one should "interpret" what follows, it tells you how to view it and how to apply what the entirety of the document that follows was purposed to be understood"

Therefore there is not doubt Trump and the GOP do not support and defend COTUS since there is no indication during the past two years that they support,

forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

For every point you might try to refute each of these values, I'll post an action by the current administration and the Congress under McConnell and Ryan to prove my point.

• Consider if you will, McConnell's nonfeasance in the Senate's duty to vote on a President's nominee for the Supreme Court
• The EO's by the President to break apart family units when the children were born and native citizens and one parent entered the US 20 years before and was deported for a minor infraction
• The efforts by the GOP to deny equal opportunity and equal rights to gay and lesbian citizens, to join our military, marry or have a cake made for their wedding.

Exactly, you have no wish to know the truth, you only wish to pontificate about what YOU think is the truth. LOL, it tells you exactly what the preamble was designed to do and how to look at, and interpret the rest of the document. Why try and deflect from the original purpose of said preamble? Whatever Repubs and Dems are doing today has very little to with what the Constitution was meant to do. I do however acknowledge (once again) how smart you think you are. You are over compensating honey.

Oh yes, I'm not a pub.

LMAO Neither am I though the lefty loons keep calling me one.

 

[Ambivalent1]

"I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies."

"I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

"
I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

Conjecture and personal opinions. I always wonder how people like you get such a high opinion of yourself, your partisan views render the things you type invalid.

Oh the irony, your remark is not a rebuttal, it is an idiot-gram wrapped in an ad hominem by a hypocrite. What do you think, oh, excuse me, what do you believe a political message board thrives on if not personal opinions and conjecture?

Putting aside the asshole within your comment - your claim I have a high opinion of myself - I'm reminded of the phrase, "In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man king". I'm educated, and realize that the more I learn the less I know - which is probably too abstract for you to comprehend; I passed both the SAT well enough to attend CAL and graduate, and tha LSAT well enough to be accepted to two law schools (which I did not enroll in as I chose a different career path).

So, what do you think (lol) of the Preamble and why was it part of COTUS? For once, try to think outside the box in which you seem to be hopelessly stuck.

LOL, to you an "idiot gram" is anything anyone says to challenge your "opinions". You don't get to define what is and isn't a "Republican". There is an asshole in every post you make but YOUR assholery is just fine because you think everything you think is correct

Now, unlike yourself (you need to project your own interpretation into any given discussion). Me? I'll rely upon what the Founders themselves had to say about it.

"The novelty of the undertaking immediately strikes us. It has been shewn in the course of these papers, that the existing Confederation is founded on principles which are fallacious; that we must consequently change this first foundation, and with it, the superstructure resting upon it. It has been shewn, that the other confederacies which could be consulted as precedents, have been viciated by the same erroneous principles, and can therefore furnish no other light than that of beacons, which give warning of the course to be shunned, without pointing out that which ought to be pursued. The most that the Convention could do in such a situation, was to avoid the errors suggested by the past experience of other countries, as well as of our own; and to provide a convenient mode of rectifying their own errors, as future experience may unfold them."

Preamble: James Madison, Federalist, no. 37, 233--39

The preamble is the foundation by which one should "interpret" what follows, it tells you how to view it and how to apply what the entirety of the document that follows was purposed to be understood. You don't have a clue as to what you don't know son. You have a stunted, myopic view of the world. You are limited to the way your "education" has told you to view things. Much of the educational system has been designed to stunt/close your mind. I don't believe that you are bright enough to ever be able to break out of your intellectual shackles.

"LOL, to you an "idiot gram" is anything anyone says to challenge your "opinions".

This is your opinion; you are really not very bright - my opinion, based on the evidence in your first sentence)

I'm not going to waste my time reading The Federalist, you posted it, post the sentence where it disproves my post.

Even that will prove nothing, Madison was overruled by the Supreme Court in his opinion on Marbury, and even if one is to believe whatever is in your link, it is NOT written anywhere in COTUS. In fact, as you wrote,

"The preamble is the foundation by which one should "interpret" what follows, it tells you how to view it and how to apply what the entirety of the document that follows was purposed to be understood"

Therefore there is not doubt Trump and the GOP do not support and defend COTUS since there is no indication during the past two years that they support,

forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

For every point you might try to refute each of these values, I'll post an action by the current administration and the Congress under McConnell and Ryan to prove my point.

• Consider if you will, McConnell's nonfeasance in the Senate's duty to vote on a President's nominee for the Supreme Court
• The EO's by the President to break apart family units when the children were born and native citizens and one parent entered the US 20 years before and was deported for a minor infraction
• The efforts by the GOP to deny equal opportunity and equal rights to gay and lesbian citizens, to join our military, marry or have a cake made for their wedding.

Exactly, you have no wish to know the truth, you only wish to pontificate about what YOU think is the truth. LOL, it tells you exactly what the preamble was designed to do and how to look at, and interpret the rest of the document. Why try and deflect from the original purpose of said preamble? Whatever Repubs and Dems are doing today has very little to with what the Constitution was meant to do. I do however acknowledge (once again) how smart you think you are. You are over compensating honey.

Oh yes, I'm not a pub.

LMAO Neither am I though the lefty loons keep calling me one.

Binary thought processes, most of the electorate is trapped in it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

First and foremost we need to define who used the two-word phrase and in what context.

I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies. No thought as to what it meant or how they might govern was intended, since they never explained.

The way I interpret "Country First" goes back to the 18th Century, when the Preamble was promulgated in 1788 and when the Ninth State Ratified COTUS.

I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future, to wit:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,
Real Republicans have begun to speak out, the real RINO's are those who support Trump and the swamp in which he and his family reside.

"I'll proffer the GOP, and in the context that the Republican Party needed a very vague but nice sounding banner at campaign rallies."

"I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

"
I've also argued [which most radical trump supporters find "funny"] that Trump is incapable of leading a diverse nation of 300 + million citizens, and that his record in office confirms he is unwilling to support and defend the mission he was elected to hold, and the vision of our founders, when they ordained and established the Constitution.
I've argued many times that the Preamble is the vision and mission statement to guide future leaders into the future,"

Conjecture and personal opinions. I always wonder how people like you get such a high opinion of yourself, your partisan views render the things you type invalid.

Oh the irony, your remark is not a rebuttal, it is an idiot-gram wrapped in an ad hominem by a hypocrite. What do you think, oh, excuse me, what do you believe a political message board thrives on if not personal opinions and conjecture?

Putting aside the asshole within your comment - your claim I have a high opinion of myself - I'm reminded of the phrase, "In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man king". I'm educated, and realize that the more I learn the less I know - which is probably too abstract for you to comprehend; I passed both the SAT well enough to attend CAL and graduate, and tha LSAT well enough to be accepted to two law schools (which I did not enroll in as I chose a different career path).

So, what do you think (lol) of the Preamble and why was it part of COTUS? For once, try to think outside the box in which you seem to be hopelessly stuck.

LOL, to you an "idiot gram" is anything anyone says to challenge your "opinions". You don't get to define what is and isn't a "Republican". There is an asshole in every post you make but YOUR assholery is just fine because you think everything you think is correct

Now, unlike yourself (you need to project your own interpretation into any given discussion). Me? I'll rely upon what the Founders themselves had to say about it.

"The novelty of the undertaking immediately strikes us. It has been shewn in the course of these papers, that the existing Confederation is founded on principles which are fallacious; that we must consequently change this first foundation, and with it, the superstructure resting upon it. It has been shewn, that the other confederacies which could be consulted as precedents, have been viciated by the same erroneous principles, and can therefore furnish no other light than that of beacons, which give warning of the course to be shunned, without pointing out that which ought to be pursued. The most that the Convention could do in such a situation, was to avoid the errors suggested by the past experience of other countries, as well as of our own; and to provide a convenient mode of rectifying their own errors, as future experience may unfold them."

Preamble: James Madison, Federalist, no. 37, 233--39

The preamble is the foundation by which one should "interpret" what follows, it tells you how to view it and how to apply what the entirety of the document that follows was purposed to be understood. You don't have a clue as to what you don't know son. You have a stunted, myopic view of the world. You are limited to the way your "education" has told you to view things. Much of the educational system has been designed to stunt/close your mind. I don't believe that you are bright enough to ever be able to break out of your intellectual shackles.

"LOL, to you an "idiot gram" is anything anyone says to challenge your "opinions".

This is your opinion; you are really not very bright - my opinion, based on the evidence in your first sentence)

I'm not going to waste my time reading The Federalist, you posted it, post the sentence where it disproves my post.

Even that will prove nothing, Madison was overruled by the Supreme Court in his opinion on Marbury, and even if one is to believe whatever is in your link, it is NOT written anywhere in COTUS. In fact, as you wrote,

"The preamble is the foundation by which one should "interpret" what follows, it tells you how to view it and how to apply what the entirety of the document that follows was purposed to be understood"

Therefore there is not doubt Trump and the GOP do not support and defend COTUS since there is no indication during the past two years that they support,

forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

For every point you might try to refute each of these values, I'll post an action by the current administration and the Congress under McConnell and Ryan to prove my point.

• Consider if you will, McConnell's nonfeasance in the Senate's duty to vote on a President's nominee for the Supreme Court
• The EO's by the President to break apart family units when the children were born and native citizens and one parent entered the US 20 years before and was deported for a minor infraction
• The efforts by the GOP to deny equal opportunity and equal rights to gay and lesbian citizens, to join our military, marry or have a cake made for their wedding.

Exactly, you have no wish to know the truth, you only wish to pontificate about what YOU think is the truth. LOL, it tells you exactly what the preamble was designed to do and how to look at, and interpret the rest of the document. Why try and deflect from the original purpose of said preamble? Whatever Repubs and Dems are doing today has very little to with what the Constitution was meant to do. I do however acknowledge (once again) how smart you think you are. You are over compensating honey.

Oh yes, I'm not a pub.

Rant filled by opinions is not a rebuttal. Maybe you are not a Republican, but you clearly cannot express yourself as someone who passed Eng. 101 at a 4-year college or University.

What is true, and not fully considered or addressed in your comment ("Whatever Repubs and Dems are doing today has very little to with what the Constitution was meant to do") is both arrogant and a half-truth.

Consider Marbury v. Madison. Where in Art. III is the power of Judicial Review given to the Supreme Court?

It's not, but it was an opinion and one considered by Chief Justice Marshall whose biography which I have in my library is quite enlightening (see: John Marshall, A Life In Law, 1974 by Leonard Baker) to those who quote individual members of our founding fathers as if they are all in agreement on every issue.