CDZ Donald Trump's Top Ten Failures

[paddymurphy]

No, I am against limiting Speech, so IMO, they made the right call.

In both cases the Right is for Rights, and the Left is for Government Power.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a radical concept 'eh?

LOL.

Read the first amendment. Cannot tell me I can't spend my money to support a candidate I like.

 

[paddymurphy]

NO. 11 FAILURE

Donald Trump’s Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
By David Boaz
This article appeared in The Guardian on August 19, 2015.
Since he shot to the top of the presidential polls, Donald Trump’s serial bankruptcies and bullying nature have made big headlines. But no one seems to have brought up a bullying business practice he’s particularly fond of: eminent domain.

The billionaire mogul-turned-reality TV celebrity, who says he wants to work on behalf of “the silent majority,” has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.

For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.

As his daughter Ivanka said in introducing him at his campaign announcement, Donald Trump doesn’t take no for an answer.

Trump turned to a government agency — the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) — to take Coking’s property. CRDA offeredher $250,000 for the property — one-fourth of what another hotel builder had offered her a decade earlier. When she turned that down, the agency went into court to claim her property under eminent domain so that Trump could pave it and put up a parking lot.

“Trump has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.”

Peter Banin and his brother owned another building on the block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a pawn shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin said: “I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?”

Ms Coking and her neighbors spent several years in court, but eventually with the assistance of the Institute for Justice they won on July 20, 1998. A state judge rejected the agency’s demand on the narrow grounds that there was no guarantee that Trump would use the land for the specified purpose. “TRUMPED!” blared the front page of the tabloid New York Post..."

Donald Trump's Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House

This is a PRIME example of the government's abuse of power & TRUMP lead the charge.

So, are you against the use of Eminent Domain for private business purposes?

Of course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)

Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?

So far from the truth it is laughable

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.

Souter, Kennedy and Stevens were appointed by Republicans. Bush, Reagan and Ford.

 

[playtime]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a radical concept 'eh?

LOL.

Read the first amendment. Cannot tell me I can't spend my money to support a candidate I like.

There can be limits. That's what 'reform' would actually mean. At least you are a living breathing human person... much more so than a 'corporation'.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

How incompetent?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schindler speculates on what happens next in Syria:

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

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

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

​

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

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

Several reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the guy that supports the president that can't seem to get anything done without bribes or threats, this seems a little hollow.

Obama proved he can't work with anyone. His entire presidency revolves around the premise that Congress won't work with him, so he's gonna tear up the Constitution and do whatever the hell he wants.

Trumps fights with Republicans have already produced results. Behner quit. McConnell may be next if he doesn't straighten up. I suspect that most of the people that are trying to undercut Trump will be gone as well if they don't start doing what they promised to get elected.

And what Trump plans on doing about ISIS is let the Russians kill them. So basically, you're a liar.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a radical concept 'eh?

LOL.

Read the first amendment. Cannot tell me I can't spend my money to support a candidate I like.

There can be limits. That's what 'reform' would actually mean. At least you are a living breathing human person... much more so than a 'corporation'.

Corporations have always had the protection of the First Amendment.

 

[jon_berzerk]

amen brother amen

 

[playtime]

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

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

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

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

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

What a radical concept 'eh?

LOL.

Read the first amendment. Cannot tell me I can't spend my money to support a candidate I like.

There can be limits. That's what 'reform' would actually mean. At least you are a living breathing human person... much more so than a 'corporation'.

Corporations have always had the protection of the First Amendment.

Not quite.

Appendix 4
The Federal Election Campaign Laws:A Short History
Before the 1971 Federal Elections Laws
The first Federal campaign finance legislation was an 1867 law that prohibited Federal officers from requesting contributions from Navy Yard workers. Over the next hundred years, Congress enacted a series of laws which sought broader regulation of Federal campaign financing. These legislative initiatives, taken together, sought to:

• Limit contributions to ensure that wealthy individuals and special interest groups did not have a disproportionate influence on Federal elections;
• Prohibit certain sources of funds for Federal campaign purposes;
• Control campaign spending; and
• Require public disclosure of campaign finances to deter abuse and to educate the electorate.

This effort to bring about more comprehensive campaign finance reform began in 1907 when Congress passed the Tillman Act, which prohibited corporations and national banks from contributing money to Federal campaigns. The first Federal campaign disclosure legislation was a 1910 law affecting House elections only. In 1911, the law was amended to cover Senate elections as well, and to set spending limits for all Congressional candidates.

The Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, which affected general election activity only, strengthened disclosure requirements and increased expenditure limits. The Hatch Act of 1939 and its 1940 amendments asserted the right of Congress to regulate primary elections and included provisions limiting contributions and expenditures in Congressional elections. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 barred both labor unions and corporations from making expenditures and contributions in Federal elections.

The campaign finance provisions of all of these laws were largely ignored, however, because none provided an institutional framework to administer their provisions effectively. The laws had other flaws as well. For example, spending limits applied only to committees active in two or more States. Further, candidates could avoid the spending limit and disclosure requirements altogether because a candidate who claimed to have no knowledge of spending on his behalf was not liable under the 1925 Act.

The evasion of disclosure provisions became evident when Congress passed the more stringent disclosure provisions of the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In 1968, still under the old law, House and Senate candidates reported spending $8.5 million, while in 1972, after the passage of the FECA, spending reported by Congressional candidates jumped to $88.9 million.1

The 1971 Election Laws...

1974 Amendments...

Buckley v. Valeo

Key provisions of the 1974 amendments were immediately challenged as unconstitutional in a lawsuit filed by Senator James L. Buckley (Republican Senator from New York) and Eugene McCarthy (former Democratic Senator from Minnesota) against the Secretary of the Senate, Francis R. Valeo. The Supreme Court handed down its ruling on January 30, 1976. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

The Court upheld contribution limits because they served the government's interest in safeguarding the integrity of elections. However, the Court overturned the expenditure limits, stating: "It is clear that a primary effect of these expenditure limitations is to restrict the quantity of campaign speech by individuals, groups and candidates. The restrictions. . . limit political expression at the core of our electoral process and of First Amendment freedoms." Acknowledging that both contribution and spending limits had First Amendment implications, the Court stated that the new law's "expenditure ceiling impose significantly more severe restrictions on protected freedom of political expression and association than do its limitations on financial contributions." The Court implied, however, that the expenditure limits placed on publicly funded candidates were constitutional because Presidential candidates were free to disregard the limits if they chose to reject public financing; later, the Court affirmed this ruling in Republican National Committee v. FEC. 445 U.S. 955 (1980).

The Court also sustained other provisions of the public funding law and upheld disclosure and recordkeeping requirements. However, the Court found that the method of appointing FEC Commissioners violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers, since Congress, not the President, appointed four of the Commissioners, who exercised executive powers. As a result, beginning on March 22, 1976, the Commission could no longer exercise its executive powers.7 The agency resumed full activity in May, when, under the 1976 amendments to the FECA, the Commission was reconstituted and the President appointed six Commission members, who were confirmed by the Senate.

1976 Amendments
In response to the Supreme Court's decision, Congress revised campaign finance legislation yet again. The new amendments, enacted on May 11, 1976, repealed expenditure limits (except for candidates who accepted public funding) and revised the provision governing the appointment of Commissioners.

The 1976 amendments contained other changes, including provisions that limited the scope of PAC fundraising by corporations and labor organizations. Preceding this curtailment of PAC solicitations, the FEC had issued an advisory opinion, AO 197523 (the SunPAC opinion), confirming that the 1971 law permitted a corporation to use treasury money to establish, operate and solicit contributions to a PAC. The opinion also permitted corporations and their PACs to solicit the corporation's employees as well as its stockholders. The 1976 amendments, however, put significant restrictions on PAC solicitations, specifying who could be solicited and how solicitations would be conducted. In addition, a single contribution limit was adopted for all PACs established by the same union or corporation.

1979 Amendments...

Summary
In one decade, Congress has fundamentally altered the regulation of Federal campaign finances. Through the passage of the Revenue Act, the FECA and its amendments, Congress has provided public financing for Presidential elections, limited contributions in Federal elections, required substantial disclosure of campaign financial activity and created an independent agency to administer and enforce these provisions.

Appendix 4: Brief History

Citizen's United has wiped out all regulation dating back over 100 year precedence regarding Corporation 'free speech'.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

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

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

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

What a radical concept 'eh?

LOL.

Read the first amendment. Cannot tell me I can't spend my money to support a candidate I like.

There can be limits. That's what 'reform' would actually mean. At least you are a living breathing human person... much more so than a 'corporation'.

Corporations have always had the protection of the First Amendment.

Not quite.

Appendix 4
The Federal Election Campaign Laws:A Short History
Before the 1971 Federal Elections Laws
The first Federal campaign finance legislation was an 1867 law that prohibited Federal officers from requesting contributions from Navy Yard workers. Over the next hundred years, Congress enacted a series of laws which sought broader regulation of Federal campaign financing. These legislative initiatives, taken together, sought to:

• Limit contributions to ensure that wealthy individuals and special interest groups did not have a disproportionate influence on Federal elections;
• Prohibit certain sources of funds for Federal campaign purposes;
• Control campaign spending; and
• Require public disclosure of campaign finances to deter abuse and to educate the electorate.

This effort to bring about more comprehensive campaign finance reform began in 1907 when Congress passed the Tillman Act, which prohibited corporations and national banks from contributing money to Federal campaigns. The first Federal campaign disclosure legislation was a 1910 law affecting House elections only. In 1911, the law was amended to cover Senate elections as well, and to set spending limits for all Congressional candidates.

The Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925, which affected general election activity only, strengthened disclosure requirements and increased expenditure limits. The Hatch Act of 1939 and its 1940 amendments asserted the right of Congress to regulate primary elections and included provisions limiting contributions and expenditures in Congressional elections. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 barred both labor unions and corporations from making expenditures and contributions in Federal elections.

The campaign finance provisions of all of these laws were largely ignored, however, because none provided an institutional framework to administer their provisions effectively. The laws had other flaws as well. For example, spending limits applied only to committees active in two or more States. Further, candidates could avoid the spending limit and disclosure requirements altogether because a candidate who claimed to have no knowledge of spending on his behalf was not liable under the 1925 Act.

The evasion of disclosure provisions became evident when Congress passed the more stringent disclosure provisions of the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In 1968, still under the old law, House and Senate candidates reported spending $8.5 million, while in 1972, after the passage of the FECA, spending reported by Congressional candidates jumped to $88.9 million.1

The 1971 Election Laws...

1974 Amendments...

Buckley v. Valeo

Key provisions of the 1974 amendments were immediately challenged as unconstitutional in a lawsuit filed by Senator James L. Buckley (Republican Senator from New York) and Eugene McCarthy (former Democratic Senator from Minnesota) against the Secretary of the Senate, Francis R. Valeo. The Supreme Court handed down its ruling on January 30, 1976. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

The Court upheld contribution limits because they served the government's interest in safeguarding the integrity of elections. However, the Court overturned the expenditure limits, stating: "It is clear that a primary effect of these expenditure limitations is to restrict the quantity of campaign speech by individuals, groups and candidates. The restrictions. . . limit political expression at the core of our electoral process and of First Amendment freedoms." Acknowledging that both contribution and spending limits had First Amendment implications, the Court stated that the new law's "expenditure ceiling impose significantly more severe restrictions on protected freedom of political expression and association than do its limitations on financial contributions." The Court implied, however, that the expenditure limits placed on publicly funded candidates were constitutional because Presidential candidates were free to disregard the limits if they chose to reject public financing; later, the Court affirmed this ruling in Republican National Committee v. FEC. 445 U.S. 955 (1980).

The Court also sustained other provisions of the public funding law and upheld disclosure and recordkeeping requirements. However, the Court found that the method of appointing FEC Commissioners violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers, since Congress, not the President, appointed four of the Commissioners, who exercised executive powers. As a result, beginning on March 22, 1976, the Commission could no longer exercise its executive powers.7 The agency resumed full activity in May, when, under the 1976 amendments to the FECA, the Commission was reconstituted and the President appointed six Commission members, who were confirmed by the Senate.

1976 Amendments
In response to the Supreme Court's decision, Congress revised campaign finance legislation yet again. The new amendments, enacted on May 11, 1976, repealed expenditure limits (except for candidates who accepted public funding) and revised the provision governing the appointment of Commissioners.

The 1976 amendments contained other changes, including provisions that limited the scope of PAC fundraising by corporations and labor organizations. Preceding this curtailment of PAC solicitations, the FEC had issued an advisory opinion, AO 197523 (the SunPAC opinion), confirming that the 1971 law permitted a corporation to use treasury money to establish, operate and solicit contributions to a PAC. The opinion also permitted corporations and their PACs to solicit the corporation's employees as well as its stockholders. The 1976 amendments, however, put significant restrictions on PAC solicitations, specifying who could be solicited and how solicitations would be conducted. In addition, a single contribution limit was adopted for all PACs established by the same union or corporation.

1979 Amendments...

Summary
In one decade, Congress has fundamentally altered the regulation of Federal campaign finances. Through the passage of the Revenue Act, the FECA and its amendments, Congress has provided public financing for Presidential elections, limited contributions in Federal elections, required substantial disclosure of campaign financial activity and created an independent agency to administer and enforce these provisions.

Appendix 4: Brief History

Citizen's United has wiped out all regulation dating back over 100 year precedence regarding Corporation 'free speech'.

I'm trying to figure out if you're for or against congress doing what the constitution says it can do....

 

[Flopper]

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

How incompetent?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schindler speculates on what happens next in Syria:

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

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

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

​

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

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

Several reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the guy that supports the president that can't seem to get anything done without bribes or threats, this seems a little hollow.

Obama proved he can't work with anyone. His entire presidency revolves around the premise that Congress won't work with him, so he's gonna tear up the Constitution and do whatever the hell he wants.

Trumps fights with Republicans have already produced results. Behner quit. McConnell may be next if he doesn't straighten up. I suspect that most of the people that are trying to undercut Trump will be gone as well if they don't start doing what they promised to get elected.

And what Trump plans on doing about ISIS is let the Russians kill them. So basically, you're a liar.

Get serious. Boehner's resignation had nothing to do with Trump. He was ineffective at bringing together far right conservatives and more moderate conservatives. Considering congress's views on Trump, condemnation by Trump would have probably helped Boehner rather hurt him. Republicans in congress have been going after Trump like jackals after raw meat.

Putin has no plan for ISIS. He plans to protect Assad and Russian interest in Syria against several faction including ISIS that threatens Assad.

Consider Trump's almost unintelligible comment on 60 minutes, "Now let me just say this: ISIS in Syria, (Syrian President Bashar el) Assad in Syria, Assad and ISIS are mortal enemies. We go in to fight ISIS. Why aren't we letting ISIS go and fight Assad and then we pick up the remnants?" Pickup the remnants? Does the idiot think Putin is gong to wipe out ISIS in Syria and Iraq and head back to Russia.

Trump: Draw down in fight against ISIS in Syria - CNNPolitics.com

 

[Correll]

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

b) Good for him.

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

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

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

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

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

Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIbs generally have very closed minds.

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

That is all that needs to be said.

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

You just tried to refute my point about you begging the question, by begging the question.

Insisting that your premise be the basis of the debate is not debating.

Your mind is completely closed, and your logic is completely circular.

 

[Correll]

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

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

As long as the rule enforcers were honest and unbiased.

Oops.

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

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

Are you talking about government funded campaigns?

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

Given by who from what funds?

 

[Correll]

So, are you against the use of Eminent Domain for private business purposes?

Of course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)

Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?

So far from the truth it is laughable

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.

Souter, Kennedy and Stevens were appointed by Republicans. Bush, Reagan and Ford.

Christ! I knew Kennedy was, but Souter and Stevens have been so liberal.

Really goes to show how hard it is to find trustworthy conservative judges.

So, all dems voting for this abuse of power, and the repubs dividing up fairly evenly.

Crappy for both sides, but still crappier for yours.

 

[playtime]

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

As long as the rule enforcers were honest and unbiased.

Oops.

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

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

Are you talking about government funded campaigns?

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

Given by who from what funds?

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

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

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

Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIbs generally have very closed minds.

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

That is all that needs to be said.

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

You just tried to refute my point about you begging the question, by begging the question.

Insisting that your premise be the basis of the debate is not debating.

Your mind is completely closed, and your logic is completely circular.

You are wrong. I'm giving an answer, not begging a question.

My body My choice. Nobody gets to decide otherwise based on what they feel, think, or want to do. It's as logical as it can get. You want to change reasoning based on what you think, feel & wanna do.

 

[playtime]

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

As long as the rule enforcers were honest and unbiased.

Oops.

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

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

Are you talking about government funded campaigns?

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

Given by who from what funds?

Public Funding of Presidential Elections Brochure

 

[paddymurphy]

Of course I'm against it. I don't think I sounded ambiguous. Eminent Domain should only be exercised in the narrowest of ways allowed... such as building a new highway. NEVER to build a private business (New London, Ct / Pfizer) or to expand an existing one (Trump Casino)

Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?

So far from the truth it is laughable

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.

Souter, Kennedy and Stevens were appointed by Republicans. Bush, Reagan and Ford.

Christ! I knew Kennedy was, but Souter and Stevens have been so liberal.

Really goes to show how hard it is to find trustworthy conservative judges.

So, all dems voting for this abuse of power, and the repubs dividing up fairly evenly.

Crappy for both sides, but still crappier for yours.

If by "Liberal" you mean anyone that is not at the far right extreme where you are, yeah, they are liberal.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

How incompetent?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schindler speculates on what happens next in Syria:

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

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

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

​

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

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

Several reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the guy that supports the president that can't seem to get anything done without bribes or threats, this seems a little hollow.

Obama proved he can't work with anyone. His entire presidency revolves around the premise that Congress won't work with him, so he's gonna tear up the Constitution and do whatever the hell he wants.

Trumps fights with Republicans have already produced results. Behner quit. McConnell may be next if he doesn't straighten up. I suspect that most of the people that are trying to undercut Trump will be gone as well if they don't start doing what they promised to get elected.

And what Trump plans on doing about ISIS is let the Russians kill them. So basically, you're a liar.

Get serious. Boehner's resignation had nothing to do with Trump. He was ineffective at bringing together far right conservatives and more moderate conservatives. Considering congress's views on Trump, condemnation by Trump would have probably helped Boehner rather hurt him. Republicans in congress have been going after Trump like jackals after raw meat.

Putin has no plan for ISIS. He plans to protect Assad and Russian interest in Syria against several faction including ISIS that threatens Assad.

Consider Trump's almost unintelligible comment on 60 minutes, "Now let me just say this: ISIS in Syria, (Syrian President Bashar el) Assad in Syria, Assad and ISIS are mortal enemies. We go in to fight ISIS. Why aren't we letting ISIS go and fight Assad and then we pick up the remnants?" Pickup the remnants? Does the idiot think Putin is gong to wipe out ISIS in Syria and Iraq and head back to Russia.

Trump: Draw down in fight against ISIS in Syria - CNNPolitics.com

I think if we had stayed in Iraq Assad would have wiped ISIS out by now. If we hadn't fed them weapons they'd be out of ammo by now. Instead, we leave Iraq, and inter-tribal squabbles led to mass desertion and a massive handover of weapons to ISIS.

I thinks it's hilarious the way you criticise Trumps comments considering the fact that Obama has turned what was a stable situation into a total clusterfuck.

 

[mudwhistle]

Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?

So far from the truth it is laughable

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.

Souter, Kennedy and Stevens were appointed by Republicans. Bush, Reagan and Ford.

Christ! I knew Kennedy was, but Souter and Stevens have been so liberal.

Really goes to show how hard it is to find trustworthy conservative judges.

So, all dems voting for this abuse of power, and the repubs dividing up fairly evenly.

Crappy for both sides, but still crappier for yours.

If by "Liberal" you mean anyone that is not at the far right extreme where you are, yeah, they are liberal.

Liberal meaning Socialist/Marxist/Progressive.

 

[paddymurphy]

So far from the truth it is laughable

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.

Souter, Kennedy and Stevens were appointed by Republicans. Bush, Reagan and Ford.

Christ! I knew Kennedy was, but Souter and Stevens have been so liberal.

Really goes to show how hard it is to find trustworthy conservative judges.

So, all dems voting for this abuse of power, and the repubs dividing up fairly evenly.

Crappy for both sides, but still crappier for yours.

If by "Liberal" you mean anyone that is not at the far right extreme where you are, yeah, they are liberal.

Liberal meaning Socialist/Marxist/Progressive.

You do understand that those are three different political philosophies? Never mind. You understand very little.

 

[mudwhistle]

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.

Souter, Kennedy and Stevens were appointed by Republicans. Bush, Reagan and Ford.

Christ! I knew Kennedy was, but Souter and Stevens have been so liberal.

Really goes to show how hard it is to find trustworthy conservative judges.

So, all dems voting for this abuse of power, and the repubs dividing up fairly evenly.

Crappy for both sides, but still crappier for yours.

If by "Liberal" you mean anyone that is not at the far right extreme where you are, yeah, they are liberal.

Liberal meaning Socialist/Marxist/Progressive.

You do understand that those are three different political philosophies? Never mind. You understand very little.

Socialism and Marxism work hand in hand.
Progressives use them to gain power.

Yes....I understand them very well.

 

[paddymurphy]

Souter, Kennedy and Stevens were appointed by Republicans. Bush, Reagan and Ford.

Christ! I knew Kennedy was, but Souter and Stevens have been so liberal.

Really goes to show how hard it is to find trustworthy conservative judges.

So, all dems voting for this abuse of power, and the repubs dividing up fairly evenly.

Crappy for both sides, but still crappier for yours.

If by "Liberal" you mean anyone that is not at the far right extreme where you are, yeah, they are liberal.

Liberal meaning Socialist/Marxist/Progressive.

You do understand that those are three different political philosophies? Never mind. You understand very little.

Socialism and Marxism work hand in hand.
Progressives use them to gain power.

Yes....I understand them very well.

You THINK you do. That is the heart of being ignorant. Thinking you know something when you don't.