Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton

[frigidweirdo]

While I think Trump is a nightmare - that cartoon is absurd. There is no such thing as a "professional president". George Washington was a farmer. Thomas Jefferson was an attorney. Ronald Reagan was an actor. In fact, our founders designed a system specifically for the purpose of having "commoners" serve as representatives.

The cartoon is typical of the liberal snobbery. The idea that we need an elite class only to "rule" over the people. Of course, the irony is that Trump (a New York billionaire) is exponentially more elite than Arkansas bumpkin Hilldabeast.

At the same time, the Swiss system has an executive made up of various people, 7 I think, and they're appointed from those who have served well in the legislature. They don't end up with their leaders shouting their mouths off like Trump does, alienating, having populism all over the place. Just steady politics.

Considering France is under control of a proud socialist and their nation is in significant financial distress, I'm not sure I want to model their system.

Ventura's suggestion is still the best I've heard. No party affiliation on the ballot means one cannot go in and simply vote Republican or Democrat across the board.

I also strongly believe we need to have mandatory polygraphs for anyone even running for office. Nobody should be allowed to misrepresent what they stand for when running for public office.

You have to understand that the way they elect their president doesn't lead to all the issues their country has, especially with striking on a constant basis.

Look at the election in 2012, 28% voted for Hollande, 27% for Sarkozy. Compare this to the US where it's like 51% to 49%.

18% decided to vote for le Penn, 11% for Melonchon.

In the second round it was 51% to 48% for or less like the US election. So the people had the freedom to choose, before then going for a more negative in the second round. In the US people don't get heard. Sometimes other people get into second place, like le Penn's father did once, then people have a say. In the US it's just "vote rep or dem because if you don't, the one you don't like will get in" and no one gets to vote for their party, parties don't get to advance in the political system.

So it's only good for reps and dems.

 

[P@triot]

While I think Trump is a nightmare - that cartoon is absurd. There is no such thing as a "professional president". George Washington was a farmer. Thomas Jefferson was an attorney. Ronald Reagan was an actor. In fact, our founders designed a system specifically for the purpose of having "commoners" serve as representatives.

The cartoon is typical of the liberal snobbery. The idea that we need an elite class only to "rule" over the people. Of course, the irony is that Trump (a New York billionaire) is exponentially more elite than Arkansas bumpkin Hilldabeast.

At the same time, the Swiss system has an executive made up of various people, 7 I think, and they're appointed from those who have served well in the legislature. They don't end up with their leaders shouting their mouths off like Trump does, alienating, having populism all over the place. Just steady politics.

Considering France is under control of a proud socialist and their nation is in significant financial distress, I'm not sure I want to model their system.

Ventura's suggestion is still the best I've heard. No party affiliation on the ballot means one cannot go in and simply vote Republican or Democrat across the board.

I also strongly believe we need to have mandatory polygraphs for anyone even running for office. Nobody should be allowed to misrepresent what they stand for when running for public office.

You have to understand that the way they elect their president doesn't lead to all the issues their country has, especially with striking on a constant basis.

Look at the election in 2012, 28% voted for Hollande, 27% for Sarkozy. Compare this to the US where it's like 51% to 49%.

18% decided to vote for le Penn, 11% for Melonchon.

In the second round it was 51% to 48% for or less like the US election. So the people had the freedom to choose, before then going for a more negative in the second round. In the US people don't get heard. Sometimes other people get into second place, like le Penn's father did once, then people have a say. In the US it's just "vote rep or dem because if you don't, the one you don't like will get in" and no one gets to vote for their party, parties don't get to advance in the political system.

So it's only good for reps and dems.

There is a lot of truth to that... You make a good point. Maybe that would open it up to other candidates.

I just can't believe these massive two party systems can't provide us with better candidates. If you look at the everything since the millennium - we've been given George Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump as our choices. The only one I felt was worth a damn on any level was Mitt Romney. The rest of that bunch is pitiful. None of them have real leadership skills. None of them respect the U.S. Constitution. None of them are truly interested in representing their constituents.

 

[candycorn]

With the small fraction of a man named "drumpf" , you have to be careful what you tell him. Not only from a national security standpoint and he'll blab. But after he loses (or wins), using the intel that may be gained to his advantage when getting people to slap his name on their hotel. If I were Obama, I wouldn't divulge anything to him...there is little chance he would understand it anyway.

While I can't disagree about Trump at all, the sad part is that Obama couldn't tell Trump anything about National Security if he wanted to. He skips most of his security council meetings to go golfing and take lavish trips around the world.

Another total lie.

I would ask if right wing nutjobs ever get tired of lying but it's clear you guys do not.

 

[ChrisL]

While I think Trump is a nightmare - that cartoon is absurd. There is no such thing as a "professional president". George Washington was a farmer. Thomas Jefferson was an attorney. Ronald Reagan was an actor. In fact, our founders designed a system specifically for the purpose of having "commoners" serve as representatives.

The cartoon is typical of the liberal snobbery. The idea that we need an elite class only to "rule" over the people. Of course, the irony is that Trump (a New York billionaire) is exponentially more elite than Arkansas bumpkin Hilldabeast.

At the same time, the Swiss system has an executive made up of various people, 7 I think, and they're appointed from those who have served well in the legislature. They don't end up with their leaders shouting their mouths off like Trump does, alienating, having populism all over the place. Just steady politics.

Considering France is under control of a proud socialist and their nation is in significant financial distress, I'm not sure I want to model their system.

Ventura's suggestion is still the best I've heard. No party affiliation on the ballot means one cannot go in and simply vote Republican or Democrat across the board.

I also strongly believe we need to have mandatory polygraphs for anyone even running for office. Nobody should be allowed to misrepresent what they stand for when running for public office.

You have to understand that the way they elect their president doesn't lead to all the issues their country has, especially with striking on a constant basis.

Look at the election in 2012, 28% voted for Hollande, 27% for Sarkozy. Compare this to the US where it's like 51% to 49%.

18% decided to vote for le Penn, 11% for Melonchon.

In the second round it was 51% to 48% for or less like the US election. So the people had the freedom to choose, before then going for a more negative in the second round. In the US people don't get heard. Sometimes other people get into second place, like le Penn's father did once, then people have a say. In the US it's just "vote rep or dem because if you don't, the one you don't like will get in" and no one gets to vote for their party, parties don't get to advance in the political system.

So it's only good for reps and dems.

There is a lot of truth to that... You make a good point. Maybe that would open it up to other candidates.

I just can't believe these massive two party systems can't provide us with better candidates. If you look at the everything since the millennium - we've been given George Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump as our choices. The only one I felt was worth a damn on any level was Mitt Romney. The rest of that bunch is pitiful. None of them have real leadership skills. None of them respect the U.S. Constitution. None of them are truly interested in representing their constituents.

I hate them all. *thumbs down* None of them care about us or the country. They care about power and control and money. People need to stop listening to them when they tell us that we HAVE to vote for one of the two major party candidates. Voting for third party candidates is the only way to get rid of the monopoly they have on our government!

 

[P@triot]

While I think Trump is a nightmare - that cartoon is absurd. There is no such thing as a "professional president". George Washington was a farmer. Thomas Jefferson was an attorney. Ronald Reagan was an actor. In fact, our founders designed a system specifically for the purpose of having "commoners" serve as representatives.

The cartoon is typical of the liberal snobbery. The idea that we need an elite class only to "rule" over the people. Of course, the irony is that Trump (a New York billionaire) is exponentially more elite than Arkansas bumpkin Hilldabeast.

At the same time, the Swiss system has an executive made up of various people, 7 I think, and they're appointed from those who have served well in the legislature. They don't end up with their leaders shouting their mouths off like Trump does, alienating, having populism all over the place. Just steady politics.

Considering France is under control of a proud socialist and their nation is in significant financial distress, I'm not sure I want to model their system.

Ventura's suggestion is still the best I've heard. No party affiliation on the ballot means one cannot go in and simply vote Republican or Democrat across the board.

I also strongly believe we need to have mandatory polygraphs for anyone even running for office. Nobody should be allowed to misrepresent what they stand for when running for public office.

You have to understand that the way they elect their president doesn't lead to all the issues their country has, especially with striking on a constant basis.

Look at the election in 2012, 28% voted for Hollande, 27% for Sarkozy. Compare this to the US where it's like 51% to 49%.

18% decided to vote for le Penn, 11% for Melonchon.

In the second round it was 51% to 48% for or less like the US election. So the people had the freedom to choose, before then going for a more negative in the second round. In the US people don't get heard. Sometimes other people get into second place, like le Penn's father did once, then people have a say. In the US it's just "vote rep or dem because if you don't, the one you don't like will get in" and no one gets to vote for their party, parties don't get to advance in the political system.

So it's only good for reps and dems.

There is a lot of truth to that... You make a good point. Maybe that would open it up to other candidates.

I just can't believe these massive two party systems can't provide us with better candidates. If you look at the everything since the millennium - we've been given George Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump as our choices. The only one I felt was worth a damn on any level was Mitt Romney. The rest of that bunch is pitiful. None of them have real leadership skills. None of them respect the U.S. Constitution. None of them are truly interested in representing their constituents.

I hate them all. *thumbs down* None of them care about us or the country. They care about power and control and money. People need to stop listening to them when they tell us that we HAVE to vote for one of the two major party candidates. Voting for third party candidates is the only way to get rid of the monopoly they have on our government!

Oh no....according to nut jobs like CC....the Dumbocrats stay up all night sobbing over their beloved liberal minions. Obama's heart bleeds around the clock for CC. He worries about her. Wonders if she has enough food and shelter. Wonders what he can do to give her more.

 

[ChrisL]

At the same time, the Swiss system has an executive made up of various people, 7 I think, and they're appointed from those who have served well in the legislature. They don't end up with their leaders shouting their mouths off like Trump does, alienating, having populism all over the place. Just steady politics.

Considering France is under control of a proud socialist and their nation is in significant financial distress, I'm not sure I want to model their system.

Ventura's suggestion is still the best I've heard. No party affiliation on the ballot means one cannot go in and simply vote Republican or Democrat across the board.

I also strongly believe we need to have mandatory polygraphs for anyone even running for office. Nobody should be allowed to misrepresent what they stand for when running for public office.

You have to understand that the way they elect their president doesn't lead to all the issues their country has, especially with striking on a constant basis.

Look at the election in 2012, 28% voted for Hollande, 27% for Sarkozy. Compare this to the US where it's like 51% to 49%.

18% decided to vote for le Penn, 11% for Melonchon.

In the second round it was 51% to 48% for or less like the US election. So the people had the freedom to choose, before then going for a more negative in the second round. In the US people don't get heard. Sometimes other people get into second place, like le Penn's father did once, then people have a say. In the US it's just "vote rep or dem because if you don't, the one you don't like will get in" and no one gets to vote for their party, parties don't get to advance in the political system.

So it's only good for reps and dems.

There is a lot of truth to that... You make a good point. Maybe that would open it up to other candidates.

I just can't believe these massive two party systems can't provide us with better candidates. If you look at the everything since the millennium - we've been given George Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump as our choices. The only one I felt was worth a damn on any level was Mitt Romney. The rest of that bunch is pitiful. None of them have real leadership skills. None of them respect the U.S. Constitution. None of them are truly interested in representing their constituents.

I hate them all. *thumbs down* None of them care about us or the country. They care about power and control and money. People need to stop listening to them when they tell us that we HAVE to vote for one of the two major party candidates. Voting for third party candidates is the only way to get rid of the monopoly they have on our government!

Oh no....according to nut jobs like CC....the Dumbocrats stay up all night sobbing over their beloved liberal minions. Obama's heart bleeds around the clock for CC. He worries about her. Wonders if she has enough food and shelter. Wonders what he can do to give her more.

That's funny stuff!

 

[P@triot]

With the small fraction of a man named "drumpf" , you have to be careful what you tell him. Not only from a national security standpoint and he'll blab. But after he loses (or wins), using the intel that may be gained to his advantage when getting people to slap his name on their hotel. If I were Obama, I wouldn't divulge anything to him...there is little chance he would understand it anyway.

While I can't disagree about Trump at all, the sad part is that Obama couldn't tell Trump anything about National Security if he wanted to. He skips most of his security council meetings to go golfing and take lavish trips around the world.

Another total lie.

I would ask if right wing nutjobs ever get tired of lying but it's clear you guys do not.

The liberal elite have a term for people like you CC.... "useful idiot"

White House Admits Obama Skips Most Intelligence Briefings

Report: Obama Has Missed over Half His Second-Term Daily Intel Briefings - Breitbart

Obama Skipped 62.5 Percent of Intelligence Briefings this Year

 

[frigidweirdo]

While I think Trump is a nightmare - that cartoon is absurd. There is no such thing as a "professional president". George Washington was a farmer. Thomas Jefferson was an attorney. Ronald Reagan was an actor. In fact, our founders designed a system specifically for the purpose of having "commoners" serve as representatives.

The cartoon is typical of the liberal snobbery. The idea that we need an elite class only to "rule" over the people. Of course, the irony is that Trump (a New York billionaire) is exponentially more elite than Arkansas bumpkin Hilldabeast.

At the same time, the Swiss system has an executive made up of various people, 7 I think, and they're appointed from those who have served well in the legislature. They don't end up with their leaders shouting their mouths off like Trump does, alienating, having populism all over the place. Just steady politics.

Considering France is under control of a proud socialist and their nation is in significant financial distress, I'm not sure I want to model their system.

Ventura's suggestion is still the best I've heard. No party affiliation on the ballot means one cannot go in and simply vote Republican or Democrat across the board.

I also strongly believe we need to have mandatory polygraphs for anyone even running for office. Nobody should be allowed to misrepresent what they stand for when running for public office.

You have to understand that the way they elect their president doesn't lead to all the issues their country has, especially with striking on a constant basis.

Look at the election in 2012, 28% voted for Hollande, 27% for Sarkozy. Compare this to the US where it's like 51% to 49%.

18% decided to vote for le Penn, 11% for Melonchon.

In the second round it was 51% to 48% for or less like the US election. So the people had the freedom to choose, before then going for a more negative in the second round. In the US people don't get heard. Sometimes other people get into second place, like le Penn's father did once, then people have a say. In the US it's just "vote rep or dem because if you don't, the one you don't like will get in" and no one gets to vote for their party, parties don't get to advance in the political system.

So it's only good for reps and dems.

There is a lot of truth to that... You make a good point. Maybe that would open it up to other candidates.

I just can't believe these massive two party systems can't provide us with better candidates. If you look at the everything since the millennium - we've been given George Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump as our choices. The only one I felt was worth a damn on any level was Mitt Romney. The rest of that bunch is pitiful. None of them have real leadership skills. None of them respect the U.S. Constitution. None of them are truly interested in representing their constituents.

I can believe it. Simply said they don't want the likes of Trump and Sanders getting in and they make it harder for them. Without money Trump would have sunk a long time ago, and Sanders is fighting against someone many people even in the Democratic Party think is a bit of a *****.

So, either have really established politicians or you have people that are rich, and that's about it.

The reason they're not interested in their constituents is because the money for advertising is FAR more important to get votes than having good policies. Policies aren't listened to, soundbites are.

So, having other parties in the mix, and pushing the main players, opens up debate. American debate is so limited and stifled it's ridiculous. In 1997 Blair in the UK spoke about health and education etc. In the US no one cares.

 

[there4eyeM]

From Reuters:

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton has opened up a double-digit lead over Republican rival Donald Trump, regaining ground after the New York billionaire briefly tied her last month, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Friday.

The shift in support comes as Clinton steps up her attacks on the real estate mogul's policy positions, and as Trump fends off criticisms of his eponymous university and the pace at which he doled out money that he raised for U.S. veterans.

Some 46 percent of likely voters said they supported Clinton, while 35 percent said they supported Trump, and another 19 percent said they would not support either, according to the survey of 1,421 people conducted between May 30 and June 3.

Trump had briefly tied Clinton in support among likely U.S. voters in mid-May, raising expectations for a tight race between the two likely contenders in November's presidential election.

 

[candycorn]

With the small fraction of a man named "drumpf" , you have to be careful what you tell him. Not only from a national security standpoint and he'll blab. But after he loses (or wins), using the intel that may be gained to his advantage when getting people to slap his name on their hotel. If I were Obama, I wouldn't divulge anything to him...there is little chance he would understand it anyway.

While I can't disagree about Trump at all, the sad part is that Obama couldn't tell Trump anything about National Security if he wanted to. He skips most of his security council meetings to go golfing and take lavish trips around the world.

Another total lie.

I would ask if right wing nutjobs ever get tired of lying but it's clear you guys do not.

The liberal elite have a term for people like you CC.... "useful idiot"

White House Admits Obama Skips Most Intelligence Briefings

Report: Obama Has Missed over Half His Second-Term Daily Intel Briefings - Breitbart

Obama Skipped 62.5 Percent of Intelligence Briefings this Year

Well, if Britebart, newsmax and freebecon say so....lol.

You can't be serious. Oh wait you are. Excuse me as I laugh harder at you.

 

[P@triot]

In 1997 Blair in the UK spoke about health and education etc. In the US no one cares.

Well, the only thing I would say about this is that we shouldn't be talking about healthcare and education during a presidential election. Neither of those are one of the 18 responsibilities of the federal government. Those issues should be discussed during elections for mayors, city council, state legislators, and governors. But I largely agree with everything else you said.

We are going to sink fast if we don't restore constitutional government.

 

[P@triot]

With the small fraction of a man named "drumpf" , you have to be careful what you tell him. Not only from a national security standpoint and he'll blab. But after he loses (or wins), using the intel that may be gained to his advantage when getting people to slap his name on their hotel. If I were Obama, I wouldn't divulge anything to him...there is little chance he would understand it anyway.

While I can't disagree about Trump at all, the sad part is that Obama couldn't tell Trump anything about National Security if he wanted to. He skips most of his security council meetings to go golfing and take lavish trips around the world.

Another total lie.

I would ask if right wing nutjobs ever get tired of lying but it's clear you guys do not.

The liberal elite have a term for people like you CC.... "useful idiot"

White House Admits Obama Skips Most Intelligence Briefings

Report: Obama Has Missed over Half His Second-Term Daily Intel Briefings - Breitbart

Obama Skipped 62.5 Percent of Intelligence Briefings this Year

Well, if Britebart, newsmax and freebecon say so....lol.

You can't be serious. Oh wait you are. Excuse me as I laugh harder at you.

That's it? That's your response in the face of links providing the facts?

I've never seen anyone more desperate or unable to make a more coherent argument than you.

 

[P@triot]

We see liberals all over America doing what they always do - desperately attempting to defend the indefensible rather than just showing integrity and denouncing illegal or unethical behavior. But every single person in America knows exactly why Hillary hired someone to set up a private e-mail server for her. And it sure as hell wasn't for "convenience". And it sure as hell wasn't because of the outdated technology of the State Department. It was to avoid public oversight. Hillary and Obama wanted to be able to engage in illegal behavior without having a record of what they were doing. This isn't a liberal in America that doesn't know that this is the reality. But they have to play all kinds of games because they want a Democrat sitting in the White House starting in 2017. Here is even more evidence that Obama and Hillary were knowingly engaged in illegal behavior:

“President Barack Obama never put forward an IG (Inspector General) for the State Department. It was the longest period the State Department has ever gone — over five years — without an inspector general, directly coincided with Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State,” Buck said.

“And it was the only presidentially appointed IG that the president never even put forward a nominee for. Why is that? You can’t put this one on Congress. Nice try,” Buck said. “This one is on the Obama administration.”

Let met guess USBM liberals - just a big "coincidence", uh? The longest period the State Department has ever gone without an Inspector General and the only IG that Obama didn't put forward a nominee for just happens to coincide with Hillary's time as Secretary of State during which she was circumventing oversight laws by using a private e-mail server. It's absurdly silly to attempt to deny any of this. It is painfully obvious what occurred here.

Obama Failed to Nominate Inspector General for Clinton’s State Department

 

[frigidweirdo]

In 1997 Blair in the UK spoke about health and education etc. In the US no one cares.

Well, the only thing I would say about this is that we shouldn't be talking about healthcare and education during a presidential election. Neither of those are one of the 18 responsibilities of the federal government. Those issues should be discussed during elections for mayors, city council, state legislators, and governors. But I largely agree with everything else you said.

We are going to sink fast if we don't restore constitutional government.

I'm not sure that education and health have nothing to do with the federal govt. They are states issues, HOWEVER the feds can do certain things to offer the states better quality education, like "hey, we've joined forces with different states, and we've seen that this works, if you want to buy this stuff it's available." sort of thing.

 

[P@triot]

In 1997 Blair in the UK spoke about health and education etc. In the US no one cares.

Well, the only thing I would say about this is that we shouldn't be talking about healthcare and education during a presidential election. Neither of those are one of the 18 responsibilities of the federal government. Those issues should be discussed during elections for mayors, city council, state legislators, and governors. But I largely agree with everything else you said.

We are going to sink fast if we don't restore constitutional government.

I'm not sure that education and health have nothing to do with the federal govt. They are states issues, HOWEVER the feds can do certain things to offer the states better quality education, like "hey, we've joined forces with different states, and we've seen that this works, if you want to buy this stuff it's available." sort of thing.

Not at all. Why would they even waste time, energy, and money on that when it's not their responsibility? Furthermore, we live in the 21st Century. It's never been easier for states to engage in discussions directly between themselves about new trends, new techniques, new materials. Why not eliminate the middle man which only goes to ensure misinformation (like that old telephone game)?

Even if it were true (and it's not) that the federal government could offer states better quality of education, they shouldn't. They simply should not. That's not their responsibility. And that's how we've gotten into this mess. They need to focus on their 18 specific responsibilities which they were formed for and leave everything else up to the other levels of government that are responsible for the other items.

 

[candycorn]

With the small fraction of a man named "drumpf" , you have to be careful what you tell him. Not only from a national security standpoint and he'll blab. But after he loses (or wins), using the intel that may be gained to his advantage when getting people to slap his name on their hotel. If I were Obama, I wouldn't divulge anything to him...there is little chance he would understand it anyway.

While I can't disagree about Trump at all, the sad part is that Obama couldn't tell Trump anything about National Security if he wanted to. He skips most of his security council meetings to go golfing and take lavish trips around the world.

Another total lie.

I would ask if right wing nutjobs ever get tired of lying but it's clear you guys do not.

The liberal elite have a term for people like you CC.... "useful idiot"

White House Admits Obama Skips Most Intelligence Briefings

Report: Obama Has Missed over Half His Second-Term Daily Intel Briefings - Breitbart

Obama Skipped 62.5 Percent of Intelligence Briefings this Year

Well, if Britebart, newsmax and freebecon say so....lol.

You can't be serious. Oh wait you are. Excuse me as I laugh harder at you.

That's it? That's your response in the face of links providing the facts?

I've never seen anyone more desperate or unable to make a more coherent argument than you.

I'm sure Breitbart and the other two are where you get all of your information Rotty or whatever handle you're going by nowadays....

It explains the constant lies, misinformation, and unparalelled stupidity.

 

[Kosh]

While I can't disagree about Trump at all, the sad part is that Obama couldn't tell Trump anything about National Security if he wanted to. He skips most of his security council meetings to go golfing and take lavish trips around the world.

Another total lie.

I would ask if right wing nutjobs ever get tired of lying but it's clear you guys do not.

The liberal elite have a term for people like you CC.... "useful idiot"

White House Admits Obama Skips Most Intelligence Briefings

Report: Obama Has Missed over Half His Second-Term Daily Intel Briefings - Breitbart

Obama Skipped 62.5 Percent of Intelligence Briefings this Year

Well, if Britebart, newsmax and freebecon say so....lol.

You can't be serious. Oh wait you are. Excuse me as I laugh harder at you.

That's it? That's your response in the face of links providing the facts?

I've never seen anyone more desperate or unable to make a more coherent argument than you.

I'm sure Breitbart and the other two are where you get all of your information Rotty or whatever handle you're going by nowadays....

It explains the constant lies, misinformation, and unparalelled stupidity.

This coming from a far left drone who is going to vote for worse than Bush and make sure they continue to support the illegal wars of Obama and Clinton..

 

[frigidweirdo]

In 1997 Blair in the UK spoke about health and education etc. In the US no one cares.

Well, the only thing I would say about this is that we shouldn't be talking about healthcare and education during a presidential election. Neither of those are one of the 18 responsibilities of the federal government. Those issues should be discussed during elections for mayors, city council, state legislators, and governors. But I largely agree with everything else you said.

We are going to sink fast if we don't restore constitutional government.

I'm not sure that education and health have nothing to do with the federal govt. They are states issues, HOWEVER the feds can do certain things to offer the states better quality education, like "hey, we've joined forces with different states, and we've seen that this works, if you want to buy this stuff it's available." sort of thing.

Not at all. Why would they even waste time, energy, and money on that when it's not their responsibility? Furthermore, we live in the 21st Century. It's never been easier for states to engage in discussions directly between themselves about new trends, new techniques, new materials. Why not eliminate the middle man which only goes to ensure misinformation (like that old telephone game)?

Even if it were true (and it's not) that the federal government could offer states better quality of education, they shouldn't. They simply should not. That's not their responsibility. And that's how we've gotten into this mess. They need to focus on their 18 specific responsibilities which they were formed for and leave everything else up to the other levels of government that are responsible for the other items.

Why? Er... because it might improve the WELFARE of the country.

It might never have been easier for states to get together, but do they? Surely it's the job of the federal govt to try and push for this to happen, or provide funds for this to happen.

Federal govt was designed in the 1700s, it's outdated to suggest that the feds should only stick to a small area of things. However, the difference between the states and the feds can be emphasized by the feds taking a back seat role in trying to organize things together.

You'd think in the 21st century states would be able to deal with education effectively, the reality is they don't and can't in some cases, like Louisiana for example.

 

[P@triot]

While I can't disagree about Trump at all, the sad part is that Obama couldn't tell Trump anything about National Security if he wanted to. He skips most of his security council meetings to go golfing and take lavish trips around the world.

Another total lie.

I would ask if right wing nutjobs ever get tired of lying but it's clear you guys do not.

The liberal elite have a term for people like you CC.... "useful idiot"

White House Admits Obama Skips Most Intelligence Briefings

Report: Obama Has Missed over Half His Second-Term Daily Intel Briefings - Breitbart

Obama Skipped 62.5 Percent of Intelligence Briefings this Year

Well, if Britebart, newsmax and freebecon say so....lol.

You can't be serious. Oh wait you are. Excuse me as I laugh harder at you.

That's it? That's your response in the face of links providing the facts?

I've never seen anyone more desperate or unable to make a more coherent argument than you.

I'm sure Breitbart and the other two are where you get all of your information Rotty or whatever handle you're going by nowadays....

It explains the constant lies, misinformation, and unparalelled stupidity.

Says the blind and uninformed CC who is nothing but a minion to her liberal masters. Sitting obediently at their feet, promising to trade all freedoms and rights (that someone else died for) in exchange for a few pitiful government table scraps.

You're a disgrace to America CC. You lap up the propaganda as fast as they can feed it to you and you don't even want to know the truth because it goes against your ideology. But the comical part is - you won't leave and go to places like Cuba to experience the libtard "utopia" you claim to want. Which says to me that deep down - you realize you need to mooch off of conservatives like a parasite to survive.

(That also explains your anger issues - knowing that you need people like me just to survive)

 

[candycorn]

Another total lie.

I would ask if right wing nutjobs ever get tired of lying but it's clear you guys do not.

The liberal elite have a term for people like you CC.... "useful idiot"

White House Admits Obama Skips Most Intelligence Briefings

Report: Obama Has Missed over Half His Second-Term Daily Intel Briefings - Breitbart

Obama Skipped 62.5 Percent of Intelligence Briefings this Year

Well, if Britebart, newsmax and freebecon say so....lol.

You can't be serious. Oh wait you are. Excuse me as I laugh harder at you.

That's it? That's your response in the face of links providing the facts?

I've never seen anyone more desperate or unable to make a more coherent argument than you.

I'm sure Breitbart and the other two are where you get all of your information Rotty or whatever handle you're going by nowadays....

It explains the constant lies, misinformation, and unparalelled stupidity.

Says the blind and uninformed CC who is nothing but a minion to her liberal masters. Sitting obediently at their feet, promising to trade all freedoms and rights (that someone else died for) in exchange for a few pitiful government table scraps.

You're a disgrace to America CC. You lap up the propaganda as fast as they can feed it to you and you don't even want to know the truth because it goes against your ideology. But the comical part is - you won't leave and go to places like Cuba to experience the libtard "utopia" you claim to want. Which says to me that deep down - you realize you need to mooch off of conservatives like a parasite to survive.

(That also explains your anger issues - knowing that you need people like me just to survive)

Inflated sense of self; Check
No basis in reality; Check
Nothing but insults: Check

You're the perfect Drumpf worshiper. When your messiah gets his ass kicked in November, will you convert to the next false prophet?