Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton

[frigidweirdo]

The problem is with your argument is that the federal govt was given the legislative powers.

That's not true at all. The legislative branch was given legislative powers. But it is the executive branch that is involving itself in education. Furthermore, even if Congress was to pass a law making it the business of the executive branch to involve itself in education, it still wouldn't matter. The only way that would be legal would be to amend the Constitution. Anything short of an amendment is irrelevant because the federal government is restricted to 18 enumerated powers and education is not one of them.

Well, what limits are there on the executive dealing with education? The thing is that all money raised must go through Congress, and the power to raise taxes is through Congress, so... Congress could stop this at any time.

In theory your right. And they should stop it. But there are too many liberals in the Republican Party. And even if they did, Obama was just veto it anyway. That was on thing I loved about Ron Paul. While I never would have voted for him based on his national security policies, his domestic policies were spot on. He would have gotten the federal government out of everything they have no business being in. I think his son Rand would give us the best of both world's.

Well that's how government works. The govt does what it likes within the separation of powers, after that it's up to the voters, and the voters don't seem to care for your view, so it doesn't happen.

Again...not true at all. That's not how "government works". The U.S. Constitution dictates how government works and it is the law. Every time it's violated, the people doing it are violating the law. Jimmy Carter violated the law when he created the Department of Education out of thin air. And even if Congress had created it, it would still be illegal since it is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution. You want it? Jimmy Carter wants it? Then amend the Constitution. That's the law. That is how "it works".

Basically, what you and all of your pals on the left are saying is "we can't get the votes to legally get what we want so we will just break the law achieve everything illegally". Not acceptable. Sorry. And only an unethical sleaze bag would find it acceptable.

But then again government is fluid, changes with time, and changes with the will of the people, right? Or supposed to.

 

[P@triot]

That's not true at all. The legislative branch was given legislative powers. But it is the executive branch that is involving itself in education. Furthermore, even if Congress was to pass a law making it the business of the executive branch to involve itself in education, it still wouldn't matter. The only way that would be legal would be to amend the Constitution. Anything short of an amendment is irrelevant because the federal government is restricted to 18 enumerated powers and education is not one of them.

Well, what limits are there on the executive dealing with education? The thing is that all money raised must go through Congress, and the power to raise taxes is through Congress, so... Congress could stop this at any time.

In theory your right. And they should stop it. But there are too many liberals in the Republican Party. And even if they did, Obama was just veto it anyway. That was on thing I loved about Ron Paul. While I never would have voted for him based on his national security policies, his domestic policies were spot on. He would have gotten the federal government out of everything they have no business being in. I think his son Rand would give us the best of both world's.

Well that's how government works. The govt does what it likes within the separation of powers, after that it's up to the voters, and the voters don't seem to care for your view, so it doesn't happen.

Again...not true at all. That's not how "government works". The U.S. Constitution dictates how government works and it is the law. Every time it's violated, the people doing it are violating the law. Jimmy Carter violated the law when he created the Department of Education out of thin air. And even if Congress had created it, it would still be illegal since it is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution. You want it? Jimmy Carter wants it? Then amend the Constitution. That's the law. That is how "it works".

Basically, what you and all of your pals on the left are saying is "we can't get the votes to legally get what we want so we will just break the law achieve everything illegally". Not acceptable. Sorry. And only an unethical sleaze bag would find it acceptable.

But then again government is fluid, changes with time, and changes with the will of the people, right? Or supposed to.

That's the equivalent of saying "the speed limit is fluid" when you get pulled over for speeding. That's simply not true and the officer wouldn't accept it. Government is not "fluid". It is rigidly structured and restricted by rules and laws just like the rest of society. However, it can be altered through the amendment process.

 

[P@triot]

That's not true at all. The legislative branch was given legislative powers. But it is the executive branch that is involving itself in education. Furthermore, even if Congress was to pass a law making it the business of the executive branch to involve itself in education, it still wouldn't matter. The only way that would be legal would be to amend the Constitution. Anything short of an amendment is irrelevant because the federal government is restricted to 18 enumerated powers and education is not one of them.

Well, what limits are there on the executive dealing with education? The thing is that all money raised must go through Congress, and the power to raise taxes is through Congress, so... Congress could stop this at any time.

In theory your right. And they should stop it. But there are too many liberals in the Republican Party. And even if they did, Obama was just veto it anyway. That was on thing I loved about Ron Paul. While I never would have voted for him based on his national security policies, his domestic policies were spot on. He would have gotten the federal government out of everything they have no business being in. I think his son Rand would give us the best of both world's.

Well that's how government works. The govt does what it likes within the separation of powers, after that it's up to the voters, and the voters don't seem to care for your view, so it doesn't happen.

Again...not true at all. That's not how "government works". The U.S. Constitution dictates how government works and it is the law. Every time it's violated, the people doing it are violating the law. Jimmy Carter violated the law when he created the Department of Education out of thin air. And even if Congress had created it, it would still be illegal since it is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution. You want it? Jimmy Carter wants it? Then amend the Constitution. That's the law. That is how "it works".

Basically, what you and all of your pals on the left are saying is "we can't get the votes to legally get what we want so we will just break the law achieve everything illegally". Not acceptable. Sorry. And only an unethical sleaze bag would find it acceptable.

But then again government is fluid, changes with time, and changes with the will of the people, right? Or supposed to.

In all seriousness Fridge - even being a liberal - don't you think that things are completely out of control in this nation? Don't you think $19 trillion is just insane?

You ever hear that old saying: how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

That's what we need to to in the U.S. The federal government attempted to swallow and entire elephant and it chocked. If we don't provide the heimlich (i.e. Constitutional government) really soon, it's going to die. Literally die. The federal government is responsible for 18 enumerated powers. Beyond that (such as energy), pass it down to the states. The liberal states (such as California and New York) will be all over that shit. The conservative states may ignore that stuff (so be it - so what?) but be all over other things (such as conceal carry laws). Everyone wins. Conservatives get to live their life how they want, liberals get to live their life how they want. Failed liberal policy will only affect liberal states - the rest can thrive and prosper. Failed conservative policy will only affect conservative states - the rest can thrive and prosper. Why wouldn't you want that kind of flexibility, freedom, and redundancy? Why have single-point-of-failure invested in the federal government? A great example of this is Detroit. It's a miserable shit hole that filed for bankruptcy. But guess what? Doesn't affect me at all because I don't live in Detroit. That was the whole idea behind the United States. When everything is handed over to the federal government, it profoundly impacts all of us. And just as bad - none of us have a voice in any of it. If the people of Detroit try to get a meeting with the mayor - I guarantee you they will. Try to schedule a meeting with the president of the United States. I dare you. It won't happen. Ever. We need to restore Constitutional government so that everyone can take control of their area of responsibility, so that all of us have more freedom and flexibility, and so that each of us has a louder voice in the direction of our lives.

 

[candycorn]

The only one I felt was worth a damn on any level was Mitt Romney.

The better man and president beat Mitt.

Cute story....but Romney exposed Obama for the ideology fool that he is on the national stage. Obama was a clueless buffoon on stage and everyone was laughing at him.

332-206.

He who gets the last laugh laughs best….

Voter fraud…

 

[P@triot]

The only one I felt was worth a damn on any level was Mitt Romney.

The better man and president beat Mitt.

Cute story....but Romney exposed Obama for the ideology fool that he is on the national stage. Obama was a clueless buffoon on stage and everyone was laughing at him.

332-206.

He who gets the last laugh laughs best….

Voter fraud…

You said it. Voter fraud. And it's true that Obama is laughing - but at mindless minions like you who survive off of table scraps while he's rolling around in tens of millions of dollars. He tells you that the 1% is "evil". You believe him (being mindless). So what do you do? Vote to put one of those 1% in office. You'll do it again with Hilldabeast come November

 

[candycorn]

The only one I felt was worth a damn on any level was Mitt Romney.

The better man and president beat Mitt.

Cute story....but Romney exposed Obama for the ideology fool that he is on the national stage. Obama was a clueless buffoon on stage and everyone was laughing at him.

332-206.

He who gets the last laugh laughs best….

Voter fraud…

You said it. Voter fraud. And it's true that Obama is laughing - but at mindless minions like you who survive off of table scraps while he's rolling around in tens of millions of dollars. He tells you that the 1% is "evil". You believe him (being mindless). So what do you do? Vote to put one of those 1% in office. You'll do it again with Hilldabeast come November

Across 11 states that he kicked Romney’s ass in?
But of course, somehow….the democrats forget all about voter fraud in 2014???

You’re a ******* moron.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, what limits are there on the executive dealing with education? The thing is that all money raised must go through Congress, and the power to raise taxes is through Congress, so... Congress could stop this at any time.

In theory your right. And they should stop it. But there are too many liberals in the Republican Party. And even if they did, Obama was just veto it anyway. That was on thing I loved about Ron Paul. While I never would have voted for him based on his national security policies, his domestic policies were spot on. He would have gotten the federal government out of everything they have no business being in. I think his son Rand would give us the best of both world's.

Well that's how government works. The govt does what it likes within the separation of powers, after that it's up to the voters, and the voters don't seem to care for your view, so it doesn't happen.

Again...not true at all. That's not how "government works". The U.S. Constitution dictates how government works and it is the law. Every time it's violated, the people doing it are violating the law. Jimmy Carter violated the law when he created the Department of Education out of thin air. And even if Congress had created it, it would still be illegal since it is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution. You want it? Jimmy Carter wants it? Then amend the Constitution. That's the law. That is how "it works".

Basically, what you and all of your pals on the left are saying is "we can't get the votes to legally get what we want so we will just break the law achieve everything illegally". Not acceptable. Sorry. And only an unethical sleaze bag would find it acceptable.

But then again government is fluid, changes with time, and changes with the will of the people, right? Or supposed to.

That's the equivalent of saying "the speed limit is fluid" when you get pulled over for speeding. That's simply not true and the officer wouldn't accept it. Government is not "fluid". It is rigidly structured and restricted by rules and laws just like the rest of society. However, it can be altered through the amendment process.

Then maybe you haven't been to Germany where the speed limit is fluid.

Of course the Constitution is fluid. Gay marriage is now constitutionally protected. It was in 1789, it was in 2010, but it is now.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, what limits are there on the executive dealing with education? The thing is that all money raised must go through Congress, and the power to raise taxes is through Congress, so... Congress could stop this at any time.

In theory your right. And they should stop it. But there are too many liberals in the Republican Party. And even if they did, Obama was just veto it anyway. That was on thing I loved about Ron Paul. While I never would have voted for him based on his national security policies, his domestic policies were spot on. He would have gotten the federal government out of everything they have no business being in. I think his son Rand would give us the best of both world's.

Well that's how government works. The govt does what it likes within the separation of powers, after that it's up to the voters, and the voters don't seem to care for your view, so it doesn't happen.

Again...not true at all. That's not how "government works". The U.S. Constitution dictates how government works and it is the law. Every time it's violated, the people doing it are violating the law. Jimmy Carter violated the law when he created the Department of Education out of thin air. And even if Congress had created it, it would still be illegal since it is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution. You want it? Jimmy Carter wants it? Then amend the Constitution. That's the law. That is how "it works".

Basically, what you and all of your pals on the left are saying is "we can't get the votes to legally get what we want so we will just break the law achieve everything illegally". Not acceptable. Sorry. And only an unethical sleaze bag would find it acceptable.

But then again government is fluid, changes with time, and changes with the will of the people, right? Or supposed to.

In all seriousness Fridge - even being a liberal - don't you think that things are completely out of control in this nation? Don't you think $19 trillion is just insane?

You ever hear that old saying: how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

That's what we need to to in the U.S. The federal government attempted to swallow and entire elephant and it chocked. If we don't provide the heimlich (i.e. Constitutional government) really soon, it's going to die. Literally die. The federal government is responsible for 18 enumerated powers. Beyond that (such as energy), pass it down to the states. The liberal states (such as California and New York) will be all over that shit. The conservative states may ignore that stuff (so be it - so what?) but be all over other things (such as conceal carry laws). Everyone wins. Conservatives get to live their life how they want, liberals get to live their life how they want. Failed liberal policy will only affect liberal states - the rest can thrive and prosper. Failed conservative policy will only affect conservative states - the rest can thrive and prosper. Why wouldn't you want that kind of flexibility, freedom, and redundancy? Why have single-point-of-failure invested in the federal government? A great example of this is Detroit. It's a miserable shit hole that filed for bankruptcy. But guess what? Doesn't affect me at all because I don't live in Detroit. That was the whole idea behind the United States. When everything is handed over to the federal government, it profoundly impacts all of us. And just as bad - none of us have a voice in any of it. If the people of Detroit try to get a meeting with the mayor - I guarantee you they will. Try to schedule a meeting with the president of the United States. I dare you. It won't happen. Ever. We need to restore Constitutional government so that everyone can take control of their area of responsibility, so that all of us have more freedom and flexibility, and so that each of us has a louder voice in the direction of our lives.

Yes, I do.

However, you're presenting issues which I feel don't address the problem.

The BIGGEST problem in the US, by a long way, and an issue which hardly anyone every talks about, is the manner in which people vote.

The voting system is undemocratic. Not that people can vote and have "democracy", but that it forces people to vote for two parties out of fear the other party will get in.

This message board is full of partisan hacks who live and breath this nonsense.

I've lived in various countries, I did my dissertation on the Swiss political system, I sat in class on Bavarian politics in Bavaria (and understood nothing), I've studied the Germany political system, the Austrian political system, seen the British political system, the US political system, looked vaguely at the Chinese system, for all that's worth, and have an understand of many other systems like France, Australia etc.

The one thing I see is that democracy is best when people don't fear their choice. In America they fear it as they do in the UK, both are FPTP.
In Germany people don't fear who will get in, they vote positively for the party they choose. If you don't want the SPD (Liberals) to get in, you'd have to vote CDU under a British or American system. In Germany you can vote FPD if you like, or if you don't care that the SPD get in, but you want them to be checked, then you vote Greens or someone else and they'll have coalition government.

In November, no matter how many candidates are on that piece of paper, 95% or more of the people are going to say "I'm voting Hillary because I don't want Trump" or "I'm voting Trump because I don't want Hillary". That isn't Democracy.

So the politicians live in a world where they can buy votes with advertising and the people don't get much of a say, because of the fear.

You want REAL CHANGE, it isn't Obama, it isn't Trump, it isn't Hillary, it isn't Dubya, it isn't Paul, it isn't Sanders. It's a change in the way people vote, then the politicians will have to change, and open themselves up to democracy.

But it'll never happen, why? Because the political elite would fear they'd lose control. And they would. But they won't.

 

[P@triot]

In theory your right. And they should stop it. But there are too many liberals in the Republican Party. And even if they did, Obama was just veto it anyway. That was on thing I loved about Ron Paul. While I never would have voted for him based on his national security policies, his domestic policies were spot on. He would have gotten the federal government out of everything they have no business being in. I think his son Rand would give us the best of both world's.

Well that's how government works. The govt does what it likes within the separation of powers, after that it's up to the voters, and the voters don't seem to care for your view, so it doesn't happen.

Again...not true at all. That's not how "government works". The U.S. Constitution dictates how government works and it is the law. Every time it's violated, the people doing it are violating the law. Jimmy Carter violated the law when he created the Department of Education out of thin air. And even if Congress had created it, it would still be illegal since it is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution. You want it? Jimmy Carter wants it? Then amend the Constitution. That's the law. That is how "it works".

Basically, what you and all of your pals on the left are saying is "we can't get the votes to legally get what we want so we will just break the law achieve everything illegally". Not acceptable. Sorry. And only an unethical sleaze bag would find it acceptable.

But then again government is fluid, changes with time, and changes with the will of the people, right? Or supposed to.

That's the equivalent of saying "the speed limit is fluid" when you get pulled over for speeding. That's simply not true and the officer wouldn't accept it. Government is not "fluid". It is rigidly structured and restricted by rules and laws just like the rest of society. However, it can be altered through the amendment process.

Then maybe you haven't been to Germany where the speed limit is fluid.

Of course the Constitution is fluid. Gay marriage is now constitutionally protected. It was in 1789, it was in 2010, but it is now.

We're not in Germany. Nice try. Would you like to try again? Some nations may very well have a "fluid" system of government (like the autobahn that you are trying to desperately use here). But we do not.

And gay marriage isn't "Constitutional". All you're doing is proving how the Constitution is violated. So....again...would you like to try again? That's strike two.

 

[P@triot]

In theory your right. And they should stop it. But there are too many liberals in the Republican Party. And even if they did, Obama was just veto it anyway. That was on thing I loved about Ron Paul. While I never would have voted for him based on his national security policies, his domestic policies were spot on. He would have gotten the federal government out of everything they have no business being in. I think his son Rand would give us the best of both world's.

Well that's how government works. The govt does what it likes within the separation of powers, after that it's up to the voters, and the voters don't seem to care for your view, so it doesn't happen.

Again...not true at all. That's not how "government works". The U.S. Constitution dictates how government works and it is the law. Every time it's violated, the people doing it are violating the law. Jimmy Carter violated the law when he created the Department of Education out of thin air. And even if Congress had created it, it would still be illegal since it is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution. You want it? Jimmy Carter wants it? Then amend the Constitution. That's the law. That is how "it works".

Basically, what you and all of your pals on the left are saying is "we can't get the votes to legally get what we want so we will just break the law achieve everything illegally". Not acceptable. Sorry. And only an unethical sleaze bag would find it acceptable.

But then again government is fluid, changes with time, and changes with the will of the people, right? Or supposed to.

In all seriousness Fridge - even being a liberal - don't you think that things are completely out of control in this nation? Don't you think $19 trillion is just insane?

You ever hear that old saying: how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

That's what we need to to in the U.S. The federal government attempted to swallow and entire elephant and it chocked. If we don't provide the heimlich (i.e. Constitutional government) really soon, it's going to die. Literally die. The federal government is responsible for 18 enumerated powers. Beyond that (such as energy), pass it down to the states. The liberal states (such as California and New York) will be all over that shit. The conservative states may ignore that stuff (so be it - so what?) but be all over other things (such as conceal carry laws). Everyone wins. Conservatives get to live their life how they want, liberals get to live their life how they want. Failed liberal policy will only affect liberal states - the rest can thrive and prosper. Failed conservative policy will only affect conservative states - the rest can thrive and prosper. Why wouldn't you want that kind of flexibility, freedom, and redundancy? Why have single-point-of-failure invested in the federal government? A great example of this is Detroit. It's a miserable shit hole that filed for bankruptcy. But guess what? Doesn't affect me at all because I don't live in Detroit. That was the whole idea behind the United States. When everything is handed over to the federal government, it profoundly impacts all of us. And just as bad - none of us have a voice in any of it. If the people of Detroit try to get a meeting with the mayor - I guarantee you they will. Try to schedule a meeting with the president of the United States. I dare you. It won't happen. Ever. We need to restore Constitutional government so that everyone can take control of their area of responsibility, so that all of us have more freedom and flexibility, and so that each of us has a louder voice in the direction of our lives.

Yes, I do.

However, you're presenting issues which I feel don't address the problem.

The BIGGEST problem in the US, by a long way, and an issue which hardly anyone every talks about, is the manner in which people vote.

The voting system is undemocratic. Not that people can vote and have "democracy", but that it forces people to vote for two parties out of fear the other party will get in.

This message board is full of partisan hacks who live and breath this nonsense.

I've lived in various countries, I did my dissertation on the Swiss political system, I sat in class on Bavarian politics in Bavaria (and understood nothing), I've studied the Germany political system, the Austrian political system, seen the British political system, the US political system, looked vaguely at the Chinese system, for all that's worth, and have an understand of many other systems like France, Australia etc.

The one thing I see is that democracy is best when people don't fear their choice. In America they fear it as they do in the UK, both are FPTP.
In Germany people don't fear who will get in, they vote positively for the party they choose. If you don't want the SPD (Liberals) to get in, you'd have to vote CDU under a British or American system. In Germany you can vote FPD if you like, or if you don't care that the SPD get in, but you want them to be checked, then you vote Greens or someone else and they'll have coalition government.

In November, no matter how many candidates are on that piece of paper, 95% or more of the people are going to say "I'm voting Hillary because I don't want Trump" or "I'm voting Trump because I don't want Hillary". That isn't Democracy.

So the politicians live in a world where they can buy votes with advertising and the people don't get much of a say, because of the fear.

You want REAL CHANGE, it isn't Obama, it isn't Trump, it isn't Hillary, it isn't Dubya, it isn't Paul, it isn't Sanders. It's a change in the way people vote, then the politicians will have to change, and open themselves up to democracy.

But it'll never happen, why? Because the political elite would fear they'd lose control. And they would. But they won't.

Ok....I pretty much agree with what you're saying here. But it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It wouldn't matter if we had a one party system if we obeyed the U.S. Constitution. Here you sit advocating that the federal government illegally involve themselves in education, and then you say we need to fix our voting system to fix America. If both Hilldabeast and that idiot Trump were properly restrained in the way the U.S. Constitution restrains them - those two idiots wouldn't be able to do any damage to us (and thus the other side wouldn't fear them getting in so much).

You know why both sides are both so paralyzed by fear over there other getting in? Because they wield near dictatorial-like power these days. And you know why? Because people like you support and cheer for it. The only thing that Trump and Hillary should be able to do as President is veto some bills, set foreign policy, and make decisions with regards to our military.

 

[P@triot]

Across 11 states that he kicked Romney’s ass in?

Well....when you instruct the IRS to engage in voter suppression - that is a nation-wide effort that has national effects.

But of course, somehow….the democrats forget all about voter fraud in 2014???

By 2014, the IRS scandal had been blow wide open. Also, there were no national elections in 2014 genius. Only state and district elections. That's a significantly smaller pool of criminals engaging in the process. It's tough for a person in California to illegal vote in elections in Florida and Georgia genius.

You’re a ******* moron.

Watching you wildly flailing around on the floor in your frustration like a small child throwing a tantrum because they can't have what they want is both comical and fitting (since your mental capacity is that of a child).

 

[candycorn]

Across 11 states that he kicked Romney’s ass in?

Well….when you instruct the IRS to engage in voter suppression - that is a nation-wide effort that has national effects.

Okay, how did Romney win the states he did then? Wouldn’t you want to win as many states as you could?

Your argument is almost as pathetic as you are.

But of course, somehow….the democrats forget all about voter fraud in 2014???

By 2014, the IRS scandal had been blow wide open. Also, there were no national elections in 2014 genius. Only state and district elections. That's a significantly smaller pool of criminals engaging in the process. It's tough for a person in California to illegal vote in elections in Florida and Georgia genius.

And how would you explain 2010 then? Let me guess, the rigged election in 2008 guys forgot how to rig elections in 2010 but some how remembered in 2012—remembered nationwide for example—.

And somehow the same guys who were corrupting the IRS were afraid of getting on the voter rolls in another state?

I stand by my earlier statement:

You are a ******* moron.

 

[P@triot]

Donald Trump bashing his own people just like Hillary Clinton does. Good grief, this election is between Hilldabeast Clinton and Hilldabeast Clinton. Everybody is a loser in this election. Even the poor staff forced to work around these egomaniacs...

Trump Bashes His Own Campaign Staff on Call with Surrogates: ‘You Guys Are Sometimes Getting Stupid Information’

 

[P@triot]

Across 11 states that he kicked Romney’s ass in?

Well….when you instruct the IRS to engage in voter suppression - that is a nation-wide effort that has national effects.

Okay, how did Romney win the states he did then? Wouldn’t you want to win as many states as you could?

Your argument is almost as pathetic as you are.

So are you really this dumb or is this out of desperation? Just because you use the IRS to suppress political groups doesn't mean that you'll get 100% votes for Barack Obama genius. God Almighty...you couldn't be this stupid...could you? My little girls show more common sense than you do.

In all seriousness - have you ever asked yourself why you're single and lonely at your advanced age? You might want to do that (soon).

 

[P@triot]

And how would you explain 2010 then? Let me guess, the rigged election in 2008 guys forgot how to rig elections in 2010 but some how remembered in 2012—remembered nationwide for example—.

Barack Obama didn't run for office in 2010 my dear...

 

[P@triot]

And somehow the same guys who were corrupting the IRS were afraid of getting on the voter rolls in another state?

"The same guys who were corrupting the IRS"??? Wow....you don't even know what the IRS scandal was, do you? You're that uninformed. Wow does that explain a lot.

I'm going to throw you a bone here my dear (poor choice of words considering your obsession with me but...) - the IRS scandal was not about "some guys" corrupting the IRS. It was about Barack Obama ordering Lois Lerner to instruct her people to delay and/or block conservative political groups applying for their tax status. That prevented all of them from accepting donations and using it to defeat Obama.

The rest you can Google for yourself. Then again, if you haven't done it in 4 years I'm sure you'll be far too lazy to educate yourself now.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well that's how government works. The govt does what it likes within the separation of powers, after that it's up to the voters, and the voters don't seem to care for your view, so it doesn't happen.

Again...not true at all. That's not how "government works". The U.S. Constitution dictates how government works and it is the law. Every time it's violated, the people doing it are violating the law. Jimmy Carter violated the law when he created the Department of Education out of thin air. And even if Congress had created it, it would still be illegal since it is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution. You want it? Jimmy Carter wants it? Then amend the Constitution. That's the law. That is how "it works".

Basically, what you and all of your pals on the left are saying is "we can't get the votes to legally get what we want so we will just break the law achieve everything illegally". Not acceptable. Sorry. And only an unethical sleaze bag would find it acceptable.

But then again government is fluid, changes with time, and changes with the will of the people, right? Or supposed to.

That's the equivalent of saying "the speed limit is fluid" when you get pulled over for speeding. That's simply not true and the officer wouldn't accept it. Government is not "fluid". It is rigidly structured and restricted by rules and laws just like the rest of society. However, it can be altered through the amendment process.

Then maybe you haven't been to Germany where the speed limit is fluid.

Of course the Constitution is fluid. Gay marriage is now constitutionally protected. It was in 1789, it was in 2010, but it is now.

We're not in Germany. Nice try. Would you like to try again? Some nations may very well have a "fluid" system of government (like the autobahn that you are trying to desperately use here). But we do not.

And gay marriage isn't "Constitutional". All you're doing is proving how the Constitution is violated. So....again...would you like to try again? That's strike two.

I didn't say we were in Germany, and making such a point is rather ridiculous. You made an analogy, I showed the flaw in your analogy. Your response is to say "we're not in Germany" which is just a waste of time.

Gay marriage is protected by the constitution. Get over it.

I'm not having you tell me that it isn't constitutional. The US Supreme Court decided. You can ignore this all you like, but it's still the reality.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well that's how government works. The govt does what it likes within the separation of powers, after that it's up to the voters, and the voters don't seem to care for your view, so it doesn't happen.

Again...not true at all. That's not how "government works". The U.S. Constitution dictates how government works and it is the law. Every time it's violated, the people doing it are violating the law. Jimmy Carter violated the law when he created the Department of Education out of thin air. And even if Congress had created it, it would still be illegal since it is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution. You want it? Jimmy Carter wants it? Then amend the Constitution. That's the law. That is how "it works".

Basically, what you and all of your pals on the left are saying is "we can't get the votes to legally get what we want so we will just break the law achieve everything illegally". Not acceptable. Sorry. And only an unethical sleaze bag would find it acceptable.

But then again government is fluid, changes with time, and changes with the will of the people, right? Or supposed to.

In all seriousness Fridge - even being a liberal - don't you think that things are completely out of control in this nation? Don't you think $19 trillion is just insane?

You ever hear that old saying: how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

That's what we need to to in the U.S. The federal government attempted to swallow and entire elephant and it chocked. If we don't provide the heimlich (i.e. Constitutional government) really soon, it's going to die. Literally die. The federal government is responsible for 18 enumerated powers. Beyond that (such as energy), pass it down to the states. The liberal states (such as California and New York) will be all over that shit. The conservative states may ignore that stuff (so be it - so what?) but be all over other things (such as conceal carry laws). Everyone wins. Conservatives get to live their life how they want, liberals get to live their life how they want. Failed liberal policy will only affect liberal states - the rest can thrive and prosper. Failed conservative policy will only affect conservative states - the rest can thrive and prosper. Why wouldn't you want that kind of flexibility, freedom, and redundancy? Why have single-point-of-failure invested in the federal government? A great example of this is Detroit. It's a miserable shit hole that filed for bankruptcy. But guess what? Doesn't affect me at all because I don't live in Detroit. That was the whole idea behind the United States. When everything is handed over to the federal government, it profoundly impacts all of us. And just as bad - none of us have a voice in any of it. If the people of Detroit try to get a meeting with the mayor - I guarantee you they will. Try to schedule a meeting with the president of the United States. I dare you. It won't happen. Ever. We need to restore Constitutional government so that everyone can take control of their area of responsibility, so that all of us have more freedom and flexibility, and so that each of us has a louder voice in the direction of our lives.

Yes, I do.

However, you're presenting issues which I feel don't address the problem.

The BIGGEST problem in the US, by a long way, and an issue which hardly anyone every talks about, is the manner in which people vote.

The voting system is undemocratic. Not that people can vote and have "democracy", but that it forces people to vote for two parties out of fear the other party will get in.

This message board is full of partisan hacks who live and breath this nonsense.

I've lived in various countries, I did my dissertation on the Swiss political system, I sat in class on Bavarian politics in Bavaria (and understood nothing), I've studied the Germany political system, the Austrian political system, seen the British political system, the US political system, looked vaguely at the Chinese system, for all that's worth, and have an understand of many other systems like France, Australia etc.

The one thing I see is that democracy is best when people don't fear their choice. In America they fear it as they do in the UK, both are FPTP.
In Germany people don't fear who will get in, they vote positively for the party they choose. If you don't want the SPD (Liberals) to get in, you'd have to vote CDU under a British or American system. In Germany you can vote FPD if you like, or if you don't care that the SPD get in, but you want them to be checked, then you vote Greens or someone else and they'll have coalition government.

In November, no matter how many candidates are on that piece of paper, 95% or more of the people are going to say "I'm voting Hillary because I don't want Trump" or "I'm voting Trump because I don't want Hillary". That isn't Democracy.

So the politicians live in a world where they can buy votes with advertising and the people don't get much of a say, because of the fear.

You want REAL CHANGE, it isn't Obama, it isn't Trump, it isn't Hillary, it isn't Dubya, it isn't Paul, it isn't Sanders. It's a change in the way people vote, then the politicians will have to change, and open themselves up to democracy.

But it'll never happen, why? Because the political elite would fear they'd lose control. And they would. But they won't.

Ok....I pretty much agree with what you're saying here. But it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It wouldn't matter if we had a one party system if we obeyed the U.S. Constitution. Here you sit advocating that the federal government illegally involve themselves in education, and then you say we need to fix our voting system to fix America. If both Hilldabeast and that idiot Trump were properly restrained in the way the U.S. Constitution restrains them - those two idiots wouldn't be able to do any damage to us (and thus the other side wouldn't fear them getting in so much).

You know why both sides are both so paralyzed by fear over there other getting in? Because they wield near dictatorial-like power these days. And you know why? Because people like you support and cheer for it. The only thing that Trump and Hillary should be able to do as President is veto some bills, set foreign policy, and make decisions with regards to our military.

Well, again, does the US Congress have the power to raise taxes for the welfare of the USA or not?

How is it illegal for the US to spend money on the welfare of the country when it clearly states in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, that the govt can do this?

 

[P@triot]

Again...not true at all. That's not how "government works". The U.S. Constitution dictates how government works and it is the law. Every time it's violated, the people doing it are violating the law. Jimmy Carter violated the law when he created the Department of Education out of thin air. And even if Congress had created it, it would still be illegal since it is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution. You want it? Jimmy Carter wants it? Then amend the Constitution. That's the law. That is how "it works".

Basically, what you and all of your pals on the left are saying is "we can't get the votes to legally get what we want so we will just break the law achieve everything illegally". Not acceptable. Sorry. And only an unethical sleaze bag would find it acceptable.

But then again government is fluid, changes with time, and changes with the will of the people, right? Or supposed to.

That's the equivalent of saying "the speed limit is fluid" when you get pulled over for speeding. That's simply not true and the officer wouldn't accept it. Government is not "fluid". It is rigidly structured and restricted by rules and laws just like the rest of society. However, it can be altered through the amendment process.

Then maybe you haven't been to Germany where the speed limit is fluid.

Of course the Constitution is fluid. Gay marriage is now constitutionally protected. It was in 1789, it was in 2010, but it is now.

We're not in Germany. Nice try. Would you like to try again? Some nations may very well have a "fluid" system of government (like the autobahn that you are trying to desperately use here). But we do not.

And gay marriage isn't "Constitutional". All you're doing is proving how the Constitution is violated. So....again...would you like to try again? That's strike two.

I didn't say we were in Germany, and making such a point is rather ridiculous. You made an analogy, I showed the flaw in your analogy. Your response is to say "we're not in Germany" which is just a waste of time.

Gay marriage is protected by the constitution. Get over it.

I'm not having you tell me that it isn't constitutional. The US Supreme Court decided. You can ignore this all you like, but it's still the reality.

There was no flaw in my analogy. You were unable to dispute American law so you desperately pointed to another nation. We're in America. American laws are not "fluid". Nor is the U.S. Constitution. That is indisputable.

Furthermore, gay marriage (nor any marriage for that matter) is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. If it is - please tell me the article and section. No? Yeah - didn't think so.

The Supreme Court is not the U.S. Constitution (and I really shouldn't have to explain something so basic to you). The Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch and is made up of 9 human beings. The Constitution is a document and the law.

 

[P@triot]

Again...not true at all. That's not how "government works". The U.S. Constitution dictates how government works and it is the law. Every time it's violated, the people doing it are violating the law. Jimmy Carter violated the law when he created the Department of Education out of thin air. And even if Congress had created it, it would still be illegal since it is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution. You want it? Jimmy Carter wants it? Then amend the Constitution. That's the law. That is how "it works".

Basically, what you and all of your pals on the left are saying is "we can't get the votes to legally get what we want so we will just break the law achieve everything illegally". Not acceptable. Sorry. And only an unethical sleaze bag would find it acceptable.

But then again government is fluid, changes with time, and changes with the will of the people, right? Or supposed to.

In all seriousness Fridge - even being a liberal - don't you think that things are completely out of control in this nation? Don't you think $19 trillion is just insane?

You ever hear that old saying: how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

That's what we need to to in the U.S. The federal government attempted to swallow and entire elephant and it chocked. If we don't provide the heimlich (i.e. Constitutional government) really soon, it's going to die. Literally die. The federal government is responsible for 18 enumerated powers. Beyond that (such as energy), pass it down to the states. The liberal states (such as California and New York) will be all over that shit. The conservative states may ignore that stuff (so be it - so what?) but be all over other things (such as conceal carry laws). Everyone wins. Conservatives get to live their life how they want, liberals get to live their life how they want. Failed liberal policy will only affect liberal states - the rest can thrive and prosper. Failed conservative policy will only affect conservative states - the rest can thrive and prosper. Why wouldn't you want that kind of flexibility, freedom, and redundancy? Why have single-point-of-failure invested in the federal government? A great example of this is Detroit. It's a miserable shit hole that filed for bankruptcy. But guess what? Doesn't affect me at all because I don't live in Detroit. That was the whole idea behind the United States. When everything is handed over to the federal government, it profoundly impacts all of us. And just as bad - none of us have a voice in any of it. If the people of Detroit try to get a meeting with the mayor - I guarantee you they will. Try to schedule a meeting with the president of the United States. I dare you. It won't happen. Ever. We need to restore Constitutional government so that everyone can take control of their area of responsibility, so that all of us have more freedom and flexibility, and so that each of us has a louder voice in the direction of our lives.

Yes, I do.

However, you're presenting issues which I feel don't address the problem.

The BIGGEST problem in the US, by a long way, and an issue which hardly anyone every talks about, is the manner in which people vote.

The voting system is undemocratic. Not that people can vote and have "democracy", but that it forces people to vote for two parties out of fear the other party will get in.

This message board is full of partisan hacks who live and breath this nonsense.

I've lived in various countries, I did my dissertation on the Swiss political system, I sat in class on Bavarian politics in Bavaria (and understood nothing), I've studied the Germany political system, the Austrian political system, seen the British political system, the US political system, looked vaguely at the Chinese system, for all that's worth, and have an understand of many other systems like France, Australia etc.

The one thing I see is that democracy is best when people don't fear their choice. In America they fear it as they do in the UK, both are FPTP.
In Germany people don't fear who will get in, they vote positively for the party they choose. If you don't want the SPD (Liberals) to get in, you'd have to vote CDU under a British or American system. In Germany you can vote FPD if you like, or if you don't care that the SPD get in, but you want them to be checked, then you vote Greens or someone else and they'll have coalition government.

In November, no matter how many candidates are on that piece of paper, 95% or more of the people are going to say "I'm voting Hillary because I don't want Trump" or "I'm voting Trump because I don't want Hillary". That isn't Democracy.

So the politicians live in a world where they can buy votes with advertising and the people don't get much of a say, because of the fear.

You want REAL CHANGE, it isn't Obama, it isn't Trump, it isn't Hillary, it isn't Dubya, it isn't Paul, it isn't Sanders. It's a change in the way people vote, then the politicians will have to change, and open themselves up to democracy.

But it'll never happen, why? Because the political elite would fear they'd lose control. And they would. But they won't.

Ok....I pretty much agree with what you're saying here. But it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It wouldn't matter if we had a one party system if we obeyed the U.S. Constitution. Here you sit advocating that the federal government illegally involve themselves in education, and then you say we need to fix our voting system to fix America. If both Hilldabeast and that idiot Trump were properly restrained in the way the U.S. Constitution restrains them - those two idiots wouldn't be able to do any damage to us (and thus the other side wouldn't fear them getting in so much).

You know why both sides are both so paralyzed by fear over there other getting in? Because they wield near dictatorial-like power these days. And you know why? Because people like you support and cheer for it. The only thing that Trump and Hillary should be able to do as President is veto some bills, set foreign policy, and make decisions with regards to our military.

Well, again, does the US Congress have the power to raise taxes for the welfare of the USA or not?

How is it illegal for the US to spend money on the welfare of the country when it clearly states in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, that the govt can do this?

The founders were very clear that the power belonged to the states. For obvious reasons, the states delegated 18 specific powers to the federal government (18 items that made more sense for the federal government to control so the states would be unified in them - such as currency). Now within those 18 enumerated powers which they are explicitly restricted, the states used the language "general welfare" so that they wouldn't have to create a 4,000 page document outlining each and every item that would fall under those 18 enumerated powers.

Here is Thomas Jefferson himself on two separate occasions explaining as much:

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

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

That couldn't be more black and white. The phrase "general welfare" applies to their 18 enumerated powers only. And education is not one of their 18 enumerated powers. Are you willing to be a mature adult now and simply acknowledge that you were not properly informed about the supreme law of the land or are you going to grasp at more straws to make more absurd arguments?