Progressive Democrat on why I voted for Trump

[emilynghiem]

A student asked me my reasons for supporting Trump.
I explained that my views are not typical of most voters on either left or right.
But here are my thoughts and views:
Progressive Democrat on why I voted for Trump
including why I decided to vote for Trump
even though in Texas, I normally vote Green to help them get ballot access
since all the state electoral votes are going to Republicans anyway.

In cases where opponents stray so far off Constitutional focus on what our President and Congress
should be enforcing, such as bashing Bush and Trump with personal attacks,
I will make exceptions and vote to counteract what I feel are distracting media tactics
I don't want to reward but renounce with my vote.

I did not approve of Clinton abusing party, media, legal and corporate connections to bypass govt checks against abuses for political power and to undercut Sander to win; and if Cruz had not made up with Trump after undercutting Cruz and agreed to work together to put country and Constitution first, I probably would have
voted Green for Sanders so my vote would be useful in a state going GOP/RED anyway.

However, because Trump did reunite and restore commitments with party leaders I DO
trust to enforce the Constitution, I decided to vote for that. I did not want to endorse or
reward the political bullying that Clinton's camp did to get the nomination or the vote,
because that tactic and priority is DANGEROUS in govt. Clinton did not resolve to
put the Constitution first, but party and politics that excludes and oppresses the people
of both party and the rest of the nation. The Constitutionalists on the right have a better
chance of protecting the beliefs and inclusion of people and states by enforcing principles before party wins.

Sadly, the people who keep depending on PARTY to represent and enact their beliefs,
lose out instead of relying on Constitutional principles to exercise and invest directly without relying on govt.

So I sympathized with the grief and anger of so many constituents on the left
who somehow depended on Sanders or Clinton "to get into office" before feeling represented equally.

I blame that dependence on govt on the teachings of liberals who believe and use govt
for "promoting general welfare" instead of insisting that workers and taxpayers build, own
and manage our own social programs ourselves, democratically on the local level, and
quit waiting on party or govt leaders to dictate or manage this for us.

This is why neither Sanders nor Clinton could adequately represent the diversity of the nation.
Half the nation being conservative believes in limited govt and rewarding citizens and businesses
for building it ourselves. Relying on federal govt shifts power of decision making and resources
away from the working people at the bottom and centralizes it in federal officials we cannot reach.

That's why we keep wasting more and more resources on lobbying through parties and media
to try to influence these top levels of govt when the solutions have to come from workers, taxpayers
and businesses at the bottom, at the local levels who can enact programs freely and invest resources
directly --- voting with our dollars, our labor, our voices and time and energy where we have direct control.

The other sad thing is seeing that both Sanders on the left and Hannity on the right support
worker owned cooperatives, so that the people reclaim equal control and power, and can manage our
own "health care coops" and business/economies. Similarly, both Obama and Ben Carson on left and right advocated for MICROLENDING and business education/training as the solution to ending dependence on welfare that keeps people stuck in cycles of poverty. Both sides agree on common sense solutions, but are separated by the very party politics abused to try to get reps in Washington instead of investing locally.

Of all the candidates, it turns out Trump is in the best position
to rally for individual action and solutions. I still believe we can empower all people of all parties
to enact and invest in localized programs so everyone can achieve their party principles and beliefs.

Below is my original answer to the student who asked.

If you have comments or can help me edit one or both statements, here and below,
I'd like to present this to both my party leaders and share it publicly with Cruz and Trump,
with Sanders and Clinton, and ask for all parties to work together on separate but collaborative
plans so all goals can be achieved without imposing, infringing, or oppressing the others.

My ideal solution would be to have all these candidates organize and establish 4-5 city states
along the border, in conjunction with Mexico and businesses, churches, nonprofits and schools,
to accommodate legal residency and opportunities for all the people, workers and families
divided over the immigration crisis. See www.earnedamnesty.org I would invite supporters of
Sanders and Clinton especially to invest resources into building solutions that demonstrate
the leadership skills of these candidates, and any other leaders or interns who aspire to run for office.

Please help me edit this into a formal invitation and appeal to parties to work together
under the current administration to create a track not only for immigrants but for future
candidates and leaders who need a program that allows them to demonstrate and earn their status.

That way, we don't have to fight politically, personally or emotionally through media to lobby,
but can prove what solutions or policies work in real sustainable models that can be replicated in all districts, and which leaders prove effective in representing and serving constituents in practice, by actions, results,
size of populations managed, and work record we can document -- by building city states, campus towns, production facilities and military bases where the workers, the leaders and interns in development have a well documented record for this purpose of learning by experiene to build and manage their own districts they will share ownership and credit for, so that all people have equal opportunity and experience in government as our original Founding Fathers, leaders and settlers did. Equal ownership, equal credit and equal protection.

Instead of refuse and resist, let's reclaim, rebuild and refinance. Bring out the real leadership and real solutions from all sides. Quit dividing the country over party politics and fighting for the same positions and invest in creating jobs for ALL leaders and workers who want to own shares in building programs that work.

 

[emilynghiem]

My first choice is always to pick the stronger Constitutionalist.
The President and Congress should always put the Constitution first, then all the party principles on both left and right
should be protected and included under that framework.

So in order of preference
Cruz was the strongest Constitutionalist
then Trump because he will listen and include the objections and proponents of Constitutionalists on the right.

on the left,
Sanders does a better job of representing the real left progressive liberals,
including promoting "worker owned cooperatives and business/economy building"
that coincides with conservatives on the right.

I absolutely opposed Clinton because the Clintons abuse legal and corporate connections
to abuse party and govt for political power and personal gain and oppress and fail
to serve the constituents of both party and country by putting political gain first.

Sanders did not have the support of conservatives to represent America,
he would have to work harder to connect with Conservatives and workers
on the grassroots first before changing the public perception in the media
of being "socialist" and abusing govt to push "social programs" which
as a Constitutionalist I believe belong as a free choice to the people
at the local levels of state and community districts.

I align with the goals of the Greens and Democrats/progressives
who want social change and inclusion, but oppose the WAY the
politicians push for this "through govt" which is outside the limits
of our Constitution and the work and investments have to be
decided LOCALLY by the people in their own communities by choice
and not micromanaged through "federal govt" which is a mistake.

Cruz did not have the power Trump had to play the political and media
games to win the nomination. Cruz is more principled and was not mean
enough in the media to yell down the opposition as Trump did.

So Trump was the candidate after Cruz dropped out.

I debated whether to throw my vote to the Greens because I live
in Texas where the vote is unquestionably going to go to the
Republicans because all our electoral votes "don't get split by percentage"
but go to the majority winner of votes. Trump was going to win Texas anyway
so in cases that are clear, I often vote Green to help the third parties gain ballot access.

However, L,
in this election the media had me worried Clinton was going to win.
I wanted to send a stronger message that Clinton's tactics did not deserve to be rewarded.
I felt a lot like Susan Sarandon who denounced Clinton as not the right woman
to go down in history as first woman president because she didn't deserve that,
it should be another woman but not her. I understood the never Clinton voters
who said no to the party politics that silenced the Sanders and progressive Democrats
because "getting the nomination and making history" was more important than representing the people.

I also saw that behind the scenes, Trump and Cruz made up with each other
despite the unlawful lies slander or libel that Trump committed to win over Cruz.
They put the country and Constitutional principles first above that media tactic,
but Sanders and Clinton only put party politics and personal gain first.
Cruz sacrificed for the good of the country, and I wanted to reward that
forgiveness and his support to make sure Trump still represented what Cruz would normally fight for.

I trusted Cruz, Paul and other Republicans including the political sell outs
like Ryan and others to CHECK Trump, so with checks from opponents on both right and left,
Trump could still be held to only Constitutional policies that pass both right and left checks and balances.

If there was anything unconstitutional or out of line that Trump pushed
I absolutely trusted Cruz and Constitutionalists on the right as well
as liberal opposition in Congress, parties and media on the left to CHECK him
and he would be compelled to change course.

Clinton would not do that, but abuse lawyer and judge connections
through party, as well as the media to BYPASS Constitutional checks and balances.

I agree with conservatives and rightwing that we would have lost our country
to further corruption and abuse of power had Clinton gotten into office with
loyalties and corporate connections with party and lawyers that don't put the Constitution first.

The Constitution when enforced neutrally and centrally
serves as a steady umbrella that protects and includes all other beliefs
so that everyone and every group can achieve their agenda by investing in their own free exercise.

The govt is NOT to be abused to fund or endorse any subgroup with its own beliefs
that not all people share. But the Democrats keep abusing govt to endorse, impose
or establish THEIR party beliefs before Constitutional beliefs in LIMITS on federal govt.

I have argued that the proper way for progressives whether Green or Democrat
to achieve our goals of social equality and justice is to implement our own programs
locally and deduct these investments from our taxes, so the control and CHOICE
stays local and democratic, and even ALIGNS with conservatives and libertarian
Constitutionalists who believe in grassroots democratic management by individuals
and communities not controlled by federal govt and top down regulations on our resources and choices.

The problem is neither the Democrats/progressives believe they have enough power to do this ourselves
nor do the Republicans/Conservative opponents believe Democrats/liberals will take this responsibility ourselves
but will continue to push agenda "through govt" instead of just creating health care and coops ourselves
as both Sanders and even Sean Hannity have advocated in the media.

The party politics calls both parties to denounce each other's beliefs in order to get the vote out.
Instead of parties supporting each other in investing and managing their own policies so they both succeed
and govt is kept neutral and clear of any of this baggage, politics, and burdens on taxpayers.

Leaders on both right and left, Democrats Republicans Libertarians and Greens actually believe
in Worker owned coops and economic development led by local business and community leaders at the local levels.

We just don't have support to organize and achieve this with
all the money wasted on govt bureaucracy and on campaigns against parties
instead of investing our taxes and donations directly into solutions we would all support!

So with TRUMP because he is a mouthpiece to any good business idea he thinks
will solve problems, he has the attitude to work with both leaders on the left and right
on business plans that change how we do things through govt.

I trust Trump to recognize the best ideas from both left and right
and put together something that both sides will agree recognizes and represents working solutions.

So with Trump I believe both left and right have an opportunity to get involved
and get the reforms and solutions all the way to the top of govt.

It takes both the Constitutionalists on the right making sure the process is respected,
and the independent fighters and workers on both left and right to get the best
working solutions through the ranks of govt from bottom to top.

I believe we can work with this administration
better than we could have with Clinton who would have fought against
opposition instead of including minority voices stifled even within that party who still aren't being heard.

Trump will listen to an individual with a better idea
and recognize the idea and solution first, before party before color or agenda.

He speaks and thinks as an individual first, so he has to weigh in and listen
to all sides in order to represent the broadest cross section of the diverse American public.

He has his own ego but Clinton's was worse.

And after the election, after I saw Trump take on and take down liberal media
and beat them at their own games, I saw why Trump had to win before
we could even communicate as a nation. His exercise and enforcement of free speech
to speak for himself is what we all need to participate equally in govt.

He still has to listen to input and objections from both left and right.
there are Constitutionalists like Rand and Levin still screaming for corrections
and not being heard. And the left for immigration reforms still feel threatened with exclusion
while the reformists on the right feel excluded and ostracized by the left.

I believe Trump can do a better job solving these problems so everyone can benefit and win.

Sanders and Clinton were too biased toward onesided agenda and approach
to represent and bring out the voices and solutions of all America.

Trump has a better chance.

I voted for Trump because I had more faith that his ability to work with
Constitutionalists like Cruz was stronger and a better backbone for the nation
and under that Constitutional umbrella then all other beliefs and policies could be
protected and included.

We have to have a strong backbone to support all the people of all states and beliefs.

The rest of the work I believe can be done by PARTY similar to states governing their own people.

So with a strong Constitutional structure and process in place,
then the parties can learn to manage their own policies, resources and leadership
to represent and serve their own constituents who agree to support and participate
in those programs, and quit abusing govt to push that agenda on anyone else.

 

[shockedcanadian]

I think I understand your position, though in your first post you referred to "Sanders and Hannity" I assumed you mean "Sanders and Hillary"

As for the use of a vote, it's unfortunate it always seems to be a binary choice

 

[emilynghiem]

I think I understand your position, though in your first post you referred to "Sanders and Hannity" I assumed you mean "Sanders and Hillary"

As for the use of a vote, it's unfortunate it always seems to be a binary choice

No shockedcanadian

It's Hannity who has been advocating on the air for health care coops
similar to the Sanders Green supporters who actually teach how to set up local labor coops.

That's what is so shocking.
the workers on the left and right actually agree on local ownership
and taking back control from corporatized politicized govt.

Richard Trumka of the AFLCIO unions put Democrats on notice
and called from breaking from the party and putting workers first.

 

[cnm]

Bet you feel silly now.

 

[emilynghiem]

Bet you feel silly now.

Why cnm? I still believe we have a better shot uniting the REAL party leaders
from bottom to top
WITHOUT Clinton in office, when the parties are BOTH reorganizing to represent
the diverse sides and followings. The solution is still to localize and
do more representation and programming through party at district levels
where people have closer more direct representation including direct democracy.

If anything Trump surprised me by continuing to fight back against
the liberal media bias as well as he has. He proved even better at it
than I thought. I didn't even think he could win against the Clinton machine
that rolled over Sanders and half the party to win. I thought they'd continue
rolling over half the nation, but at least it's an equal battle now with all parties
divided equally against each other. Now the workers at the bottom have a chance
to unite and form allied solutions that transcend party and represent more people from all sides.

What is silly about that?
We have a lot more work to do. This is getting more and more SERIOUS

 

[DOTR]

A student asked me my reasons for supporting Trump.
I explained that my views are not typical of most voters on either left or right.
But here are my thoughts and views:
Progressive Democrat on why I voted for Trump
including why I decided to vote for Trump
even though in Texas, I normally vote Green to help them get ballot access
since all the state electoral votes are going to Republicans anyway.

In cases where opponents stray so far off Constitutional focus on what our President and Congress
should be enforcing, such as bashing Bush and Trump with personal attacks,
I will make exceptions and vote to counteract what I feel are distracting media tactics
I don't want to reward but renounce with my vote.

I did not approve of Clinton abusing party, media, legal and corporate connections to bypass govt checks against abuses for political power and to undercut Sander to win; and if Cruz had not made up with Trump after undercutting Cruz and agreed to work together to put country and Constitution first, I probably would have
voted Green for Sanders so my vote would be useful in a state going GOP/RED anyway.

However, because Trump did reunite and restore commitments with party leaders I DO
trust to enforce the Constitution, I decided to vote for that. I did not want to endorse or
reward the political bullying that Clinton's camp did to get the nomination or the vote,
because that tactic and priority is DANGEROUS in govt. Clinton did not resolve to
put the Constitution first, but party and politics that excludes and oppresses the people
of both party and the rest of the nation. The Constitutionalists on the right have a better
chance of protecting the beliefs and inclusion of people and states by enforcing principles before party wins.

Sadly, the people who keep depending on PARTY to represent and enact their beliefs,
lose out instead of relying on Constitutional principles to exercise and invest directly without relying on govt.

So I sympathized with the grief and anger of so many constituents on the left
who somehow depended on Sanders or Clinton "to get into office" before feeling represented equally.

I blame that dependence on govt on the teachings of liberals who believe and use govt
for "promoting general welfare" instead of insisting that workers and taxpayers build, own
and manage our own social programs ourselves, democratically on the local level, and
quit waiting on party or govt leaders to dictate or manage this for us.

This is why neither Sanders nor Clinton could adequately represent the diversity of the nation.
Half the nation being conservative believes in limited govt and rewarding citizens and businesses
for building it ourselves. Relying on federal govt shifts power of decision making and resources
away from the working people at the bottom and centralizes it in federal officials we cannot reach.

That's why we keep wasting more and more resources on lobbying through parties and media
to try to influence these top levels of govt when the solutions have to come from workers, taxpayers
and businesses at the bottom, at the local levels who can enact programs freely and invest resources
directly --- voting with our dollars, our labor, our voices and time and energy where we have direct control.

The other sad thing is seeing that both Sanders on the left and Hannity on the right support
worker owned cooperatives, so that the people reclaim equal control and power, and can manage our
own "health care coops" and business/economies. Similarly, both Obama and Ben Carson on left and right advocated for MICROLENDING and business education/training as the solution to ending dependence on welfare that keeps people stuck in cycles of poverty. Both sides agree on common sense solutions, but are separated by the very party politics abused to try to get reps in Washington instead of investing locally.

Of all the candidates, it turns out Trump is in the best position
to rally for individual action and solutions. I still believe we can empower all people of all parties
to enact and invest in localized programs so everyone can achieve their party principles and beliefs.

Below is my original answer to the student who asked.

If you have comments or can help me edit one or both statements, here and below,
I'd like to present this to both my party leaders and share it publicly with Cruz and Trump,
with Sanders and Clinton, and ask for all parties to work together on separate but collaborative
plans so all goals can be achieved without imposing, infringing, or oppressing the others.

My ideal solution would be to have all these candidates organize and establish 4-5 city states
along the border, in conjunction with Mexico and businesses, churches, nonprofits and schools,
to accommodate legal residency and opportunities for all the people, workers and families
divided over the immigration crisis. See www.earnedamnesty.org I would invite supporters of
Sanders and Clinton especially to invest resources into building solutions that demonstrate
the leadership skills of these candidates, and any other leaders or interns who aspire to run for office.

Please help me edit this into a formal invitation and appeal to parties to work together
under the current administration to create a track not only for immigrants but for future
candidates and leaders who need a program that allows them to demonstrate and earn their status.

That way, we don't have to fight politically, personally or emotionally through media to lobby,
but can prove what solutions or policies work in real sustainable models that can be replicated in all districts, and which leaders prove effective in representing and serving constituents in practice, by actions, results,
size of populations managed, and work record we can document -- by building city states, campus towns, production facilities and military bases where the workers, the leaders and interns in development have a well documented record for this purpose of learning by experiene to build and manage their own districts they will share ownership and credit for, so that all people have equal opportunity and experience in government as our original Founding Fathers, leaders and settlers did. Equal ownership, equal credit and equal protection.

Instead of refuse and resist, let's reclaim, rebuild and refinance. Bring out the real leadership and real solutions from all sides. Quit dividing the country over party politics and fighting for the same positions and invest in creating jobs for ALL leaders and workers who want to own shares in building programs that work.

Emily, I have asked liberals here why they don’t discuss cooperation, distributionism, georgism, corporatism , communitarianism, localism etc etc.
Do a search. Nothing.
They can rant all they want about the poor. The answer is in front of them. They prefer control to helping. A system which empowers the poor means the poor wouldnt need to bend a knee to elites handing out scraps.

 

[cnm]

Why cnm?

Because it must have become apparent that Trump hasn't even read the Constitution.

 

[emilynghiem]

Question 2: What about the American Dream. Can Trump rebuild it as he claims. And how is he doing so far with that goal?

=======

The American Dream is about being able and free to work hard,
make the most of your talents and resources and opportunities
available, and most of all enjoying equal freedom, rights, and protections
to participate democratically in American society, govt, and economy,
which contributes to and leads greater growth for global society and humanity.

The American Dream is never dead.

When making a political speech, advocates have to
portray a problem and then argue they have the solution.
All within short sound bytes to market and sell their image.

So when Trump is trying to sell this point, that he
can lead America to fulfill our destiny and dreams,
he has to paint it as bad news first, and then pitch his leadership
and vision as the good news that we need to solve those problems.

I believe it is up to the people ourselves to do the same work that
Trump is doing, exercising our free speech and media to share
our ideas, visions and solutions, and rally support to implement them.

But it takes a leader like Trump who is used to putting his ideas directly into action
as a business leader, with experience organizing capital and teams of people
himself -- NOT waiting on govt to get things done.

The other party leaders, particularly on the left, depend on party or govt for power,
but the real sustainable way is for business and community leaders
to form their own local teams and build programs directly.

That's the American Dream, individual entrepreneurs and workers
starting with just a goal or vision, then working their way to the top.

This dream is not dead, but people have FORGOTTEN
that the process is to build it ourselves.

People have become used to depending or waiting on govt for solutions,
and that's why nothing was getting done.

Trump pushes to get things done, with or without govt,
finding the best solutions that make sense financially, businesswise,
economically. He didn't depend on govt before, so when he applies
his approach to working through govt, it is more like an individual taking the right idea and then working within the given system (especially strategizing between govt and media) to promote it publicly and make it happen. It isn't relying on the system to generate the solution.

But Trump cannot just say he's taking the American Dream
and working with the people to make it happen. That's too passive.

The way that Advertising works, is you play on the FEARS of the people,
you present a problem that scares them so you have their attention emotionally,
then you present the solution to sell them that idea as the fix.
This psychological approach to advertising took off around the 60s and
has been used ever since.

So Trump has to EXAGGERATE and say the American Dream is "dead,"
in order to sell the idea to the people they NEED him to save American
traditions that are under attack.

If I had to describe what is really going on with the American Dream,
people on the left are afraid they can't achieve or access equal opportunity without help of the govt. And people on the right are afraid the left is abusing govt so much, to get voters dependent so they can buy and pander to those votes, this is destroying the American traditions built on Christian, Conservative and Constitutional values that the left attacks to demonize political opponents, and thus threatening to undercut root values and traditions that are the backbone of American history, culture and future.

So Trump summarizes this fear in shorter terms, of losing the American Dream.

I'd say that people have FORGOTTEN how much work it takes building things ourselves, without relying on govt which isn't the solution.

And that people are afraid of the other party's approach as destroying the country.

Trump addresses these fears using different terms to reach the audience he is trying to market to, and it has worked.

In reality, both sides of the political spectrum are scared the other is destroying America, and that's what he's really addressing.

What it really takes to build is "doing it ourselves"
and also uniting as a country instead of fighting politically to tear each other down.

Both sides seem to have FORGOTTEN how much the govt leaders and founders in the past had to put aside their differences in order to put the country and Constitution first.

If anything, the real WORK and UNITY it takes to build America and follow our destiny and dreams has been forgotten or underestimated,
but that doesn't mean it's "dead."

These principles the American system of democratic participation is built upon are self-existent, they remain as the ultimate goal we are designed and destined to achieve, and what is missing is our faith and unity in invoking, enacting and implementing those plans.

We are distracted but not dead. We are divided but not defeated. We are threatened with self-destruction, but it is part of our learning process so we can understand and appreciate what our founding fathers went through before us. We have become spoiled and used to getting things fairly easily compared to in the past when people had to build their own towns from nothing but their own labor.

Trump appeals to the determined part of people to remember and be inspired. It is similar to when Obama called for change, and people were so hungry for that, he appealed to that need.

In both cases, the solution still depends on the people doing the work.

We have forgotten that part, but that doesn't mean the dream is dead.
Trump is trying to remind us the dream is still alive, and to fight for that.

He said it that way to sell his point, in the language of political advertising.

He grabs his audience's attention by hitting on their worst fear,
then assuring them that he can lead the fight and vision to
prevent that destruction and loss.

The irony in this, is that Trump's opponents see him as trying to destroy the American dream of people left out; so the same battlecry that rallies the right to unite, incites the left to rally in resistance, thinking they are also defending the American dream which they see Trump as a threat to.

So for his current status, Trump is successfully rallying the right in voicing and defending the Christian, Conservative, and Constitutional values and principles that have been targeted for attack politically by the left. But in the backlash where the left rallies against Trump as representing racist division and destruction of their interests, that is having the opposite effect.

It is not inspiring unity and working together for a common dream. But the fears being stoked are causing people on the left to fear even more their beliefs and goals are threatened, attacked and suppressed.

Similar to Obama, one side is celebrating what they envision as hope for their dreams,
while the other side is cowering and crying out in fear of losing what America stands for.

Trump is being successful in what he set out to do. The people and path he represents is pretty much on target. The people he does not represent are going through the same fear as when Obama was in office and scaring the liver and lights out of half the nation.

Again, nobody would be afraid if we focused on working together and building the best solutions ourselves, without depending who is in or outside of govt office.

We have to be more like Trump, and take our best ideas, build teams of support, staff and resources around them, and be prepared to implement these ourselves. The best ideas will unify people and parties on all sides, so that when these represent the public's best interest, then govt can reflect and represent the will and consent of the people.

We can achieve our dreams, but by working together and supporting each other.
Not dividing and falling apart. We either have forgotten or don't realize how much work it took the generations before us to build what we have today. That's where America is right now, and it's up to us as individuals and groups to figure out how to put our best ideas, resources and leadership together, instead of taking turns pushing one party over the other and threatening to exclude half the country when the duty of govt is to protect and represent all interests equally.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

A student asked me my reasons for supporting Trump.
I explained that my views are not typical of most voters on either left or right.
But here are my thoughts and views:
Progressive Democrat on why I voted for Trump
including why I decided to vote for Trump
even though in Texas, I normally vote Green to help them get ballot access
since all the state electoral votes are going to Republicans anyway.

In cases where opponents stray so far off Constitutional focus on what our President and Congress
should be enforcing, such as bashing Bush and Trump with personal attacks,
I will make exceptions and vote to counteract what I feel are distracting media tactics
I don't want to reward but renounce with my vote.

I did not approve of Clinton abusing party, media, legal and corporate connections to bypass govt checks against abuses for political power and to undercut Sander to win; and if Cruz had not made up with Trump after undercutting Cruz and agreed to work together to put country and Constitution first, I probably would have
voted Green for Sanders so my vote would be useful in a state going GOP/RED anyway.

However, because Trump did reunite and restore commitments with party leaders I DO
trust to enforce the Constitution, I decided to vote for that. I did not want to endorse or
reward the political bullying that Clinton's camp did to get the nomination or the vote,
because that tactic and priority is DANGEROUS in govt. Clinton did not resolve to
put the Constitution first, but party and politics that excludes and oppresses the people
of both party and the rest of the nation. The Constitutionalists on the right have a better
chance of protecting the beliefs and inclusion of people and states by enforcing principles before party wins.

Sadly, the people who keep depending on PARTY to represent and enact their beliefs,
lose out instead of relying on Constitutional principles to exercise and invest directly without relying on govt.

So I sympathized with the grief and anger of so many constituents on the left
who somehow depended on Sanders or Clinton "to get into office" before feeling represented equally.

I blame that dependence on govt on the teachings of liberals who believe and use govt
for "promoting general welfare" instead of insisting that workers and taxpayers build, own
and manage our own social programs ourselves, democratically on the local level, and
quit waiting on party or govt leaders to dictate or manage this for us.

This is why neither Sanders nor Clinton could adequately represent the diversity of the nation.
Half the nation being conservative believes in limited govt and rewarding citizens and businesses
for building it ourselves. Relying on federal govt shifts power of decision making and resources
away from the working people at the bottom and centralizes it in federal officials we cannot reach.

That's why we keep wasting more and more resources on lobbying through parties and media
to try to influence these top levels of govt when the solutions have to come from workers, taxpayers
and businesses at the bottom, at the local levels who can enact programs freely and invest resources
directly --- voting with our dollars, our labor, our voices and time and energy where we have direct control.

The other sad thing is seeing that both Sanders on the left and Hannity on the right support
worker owned cooperatives, so that the people reclaim equal control and power, and can manage our
own "health care coops" and business/economies. Similarly, both Obama and Ben Carson on left and right advocated for MICROLENDING and business education/training as the solution to ending dependence on welfare that keeps people stuck in cycles of poverty. Both sides agree on common sense solutions, but are separated by the very party politics abused to try to get reps in Washington instead of investing locally.

Of all the candidates, it turns out Trump is in the best position
to rally for individual action and solutions. I still believe we can empower all people of all parties
to enact and invest in localized programs so everyone can achieve their party principles and beliefs.

Below is my original answer to the student who asked.

If you have comments or can help me edit one or both statements, here and below,
I'd like to present this to both my party leaders and share it publicly with Cruz and Trump,
with Sanders and Clinton, and ask for all parties to work together on separate but collaborative
plans so all goals can be achieved without imposing, infringing, or oppressing the others.

My ideal solution would be to have all these candidates organize and establish 4-5 city states
along the border, in conjunction with Mexico and businesses, churches, nonprofits and schools,
to accommodate legal residency and opportunities for all the people, workers and families
divided over the immigration crisis. See www.earnedamnesty.org I would invite supporters of
Sanders and Clinton especially to invest resources into building solutions that demonstrate
the leadership skills of these candidates, and any other leaders or interns who aspire to run for office.

Please help me edit this into a formal invitation and appeal to parties to work together
under the current administration to create a track not only for immigrants but for future
candidates and leaders who need a program that allows them to demonstrate and earn their status.

That way, we don't have to fight politically, personally or emotionally through media to lobby,
but can prove what solutions or policies work in real sustainable models that can be replicated in all districts, and which leaders prove effective in representing and serving constituents in practice, by actions, results,
size of populations managed, and work record we can document -- by building city states, campus towns, production facilities and military bases where the workers, the leaders and interns in development have a well documented record for this purpose of learning by experiene to build and manage their own districts they will share ownership and credit for, so that all people have equal opportunity and experience in government as our original Founding Fathers, leaders and settlers did. Equal ownership, equal credit and equal protection.

Instead of refuse and resist, let's reclaim, rebuild and refinance. Bring out the real leadership and real solutions from all sides. Quit dividing the country over party politics and fighting for the same positions and invest in creating jobs for ALL leaders and workers who want to own shares in building programs that work.

That’s one hell of an explanation, it’s well written and thoughtful. I had another progressive give me a much simpler explanation for voting for Trump. Hillary.

 

[Reasonable]

The Atlantic Magazine very seldom endorsed a candidate for president. They’ve only done it twice in their long history.
Note what they said about Trump has come true 1000 times over.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has more than earned, through her service to the country as first lady, as a senator from New York, and as secretary of state, the right to be taken seriously as a White House contender. She has flaws (some legitimately troubling, some exaggerated by her opponents), but she is among the most prepared candidates ever to seek the presidency. We are confident that she understands the role of the United States in the world; we have no doubt that she will apply herself assiduously to the problems confronting this country; and she has demonstrated an aptitude for analysis and hard work.


Donald Trump has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of Americas nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.

 

[emilynghiem]

A student asked me my reasons for supporting Trump.
I explained that my views are not typical of most voters on either left or right.
But here are my thoughts and views:
Progressive Democrat on why I voted for Trump
including why I decided to vote for Trump
even though in Texas, I normally vote Green to help them get ballot access
since all the state electoral votes are going to Republicans anyway.

In cases where opponents stray so far off Constitutional focus on what our President and Congress
should be enforcing, such as bashing Bush and Trump with personal attacks,
I will make exceptions and vote to counteract what I feel are distracting media tactics
I don't want to reward but renounce with my vote.

I did not approve of Clinton abusing party, media, legal and corporate connections to bypass govt checks against abuses for political power and to undercut Sander to win; and if Cruz had not made up with Trump after undercutting Cruz and agreed to work together to put country and Constitution first, I probably would have
voted Green for Sanders so my vote would be useful in a state going GOP/RED anyway.

However, because Trump did reunite and restore commitments with party leaders I DO
trust to enforce the Constitution, I decided to vote for that. I did not want to endorse or
reward the political bullying that Clinton's camp did to get the nomination or the vote,
because that tactic and priority is DANGEROUS in govt. Clinton did not resolve to
put the Constitution first, but party and politics that excludes and oppresses the people
of both party and the rest of the nation. The Constitutionalists on the right have a better
chance of protecting the beliefs and inclusion of people and states by enforcing principles before party wins.

Sadly, the people who keep depending on PARTY to represent and enact their beliefs,
lose out instead of relying on Constitutional principles to exercise and invest directly without relying on govt.

So I sympathized with the grief and anger of so many constituents on the left
who somehow depended on Sanders or Clinton "to get into office" before feeling represented equally.

I blame that dependence on govt on the teachings of liberals who believe and use govt
for "promoting general welfare" instead of insisting that workers and taxpayers build, own
and manage our own social programs ourselves, democratically on the local level, and
quit waiting on party or govt leaders to dictate or manage this for us.

This is why neither Sanders nor Clinton could adequately represent the diversity of the nation.
Half the nation being conservative believes in limited govt and rewarding citizens and businesses
for building it ourselves. Relying on federal govt shifts power of decision making and resources
away from the working people at the bottom and centralizes it in federal officials we cannot reach.

That's why we keep wasting more and more resources on lobbying through parties and media
to try to influence these top levels of govt when the solutions have to come from workers, taxpayers
and businesses at the bottom, at the local levels who can enact programs freely and invest resources
directly --- voting with our dollars, our labor, our voices and time and energy where we have direct control.

The other sad thing is seeing that both Sanders on the left and Hannity on the right support
worker owned cooperatives, so that the people reclaim equal control and power, and can manage our
own "health care coops" and business/economies. Similarly, both Obama and Ben Carson on left and right advocated for MICROLENDING and business education/training as the solution to ending dependence on welfare that keeps people stuck in cycles of poverty. Both sides agree on common sense solutions, but are separated by the very party politics abused to try to get reps in Washington instead of investing locally.

Of all the candidates, it turns out Trump is in the best position
to rally for individual action and solutions. I still believe we can empower all people of all parties
to enact and invest in localized programs so everyone can achieve their party principles and beliefs.

Below is my original answer to the student who asked.

If you have comments or can help me edit one or both statements, here and below,
I'd like to present this to both my party leaders and share it publicly with Cruz and Trump,
with Sanders and Clinton, and ask for all parties to work together on separate but collaborative
plans so all goals can be achieved without imposing, infringing, or oppressing the others.

My ideal solution would be to have all these candidates organize and establish 4-5 city states
along the border, in conjunction with Mexico and businesses, churches, nonprofits and schools,
to accommodate legal residency and opportunities for all the people, workers and families
divided over the immigration crisis. See www.earnedamnesty.org I would invite supporters of
Sanders and Clinton especially to invest resources into building solutions that demonstrate
the leadership skills of these candidates, and any other leaders or interns who aspire to run for office.

Please help me edit this into a formal invitation and appeal to parties to work together
under the current administration to create a track not only for immigrants but for future
candidates and leaders who need a program that allows them to demonstrate and earn their status.

That way, we don't have to fight politically, personally or emotionally through media to lobby,
but can prove what solutions or policies work in real sustainable models that can be replicated in all districts, and which leaders prove effective in representing and serving constituents in practice, by actions, results,
size of populations managed, and work record we can document -- by building city states, campus towns, production facilities and military bases where the workers, the leaders and interns in development have a well documented record for this purpose of learning by experiene to build and manage their own districts they will share ownership and credit for, so that all people have equal opportunity and experience in government as our original Founding Fathers, leaders and settlers did. Equal ownership, equal credit and equal protection.

Instead of refuse and resist, let's reclaim, rebuild and refinance. Bring out the real leadership and real solutions from all sides. Quit dividing the country over party politics and fighting for the same positions and invest in creating jobs for ALL leaders and workers who want to own shares in building programs that work.

Emily, I have asked liberals here why they don’t discuss cooperation, distributionism, georgism, corporatism , communitarianism, localism etc etc.
Do a search. Nothing.
They can rant all they want about the poor. The answer is in front of them. They prefer control to helping. A system which empowers the poor means the poor wouldnt need to bend a knee to elites handing out scraps.

Dear DOTR you aren't going to find a lot of independent progressives who really teach self-managed cooperatives and self-govt, etc., because the ones sitting around arguing on computers are the followers and the ones leading are too busy organizing and building teams in real life.

You'd have to talk with Paul Glover who has a whole system of teaching people independent currency based on organizing business and labor pools, even running their own newspaper ads to promote supporting businesses that will circulate local currency. he's not going to be a follower online, but a doer and go getter in real life.

The real people who get it, are too busy doing it, wearing 50 hats.
I've had to search far and wide, go into the grassroots trenches to find the real people really doing the work. And they are too busy to run for office even though they have the solutions.

That's why Democrats are so frustrated. The lofty goals we set out to do require building from the ground up, through the grassroots, not through topdown govt which isn't going to be "democratic" or include diversity.
inclusion of diverse individuals happens at the bottom, not the top.

So I for one have been preaching forever to fellow Democrats we have to build it ourselves from the ground up. And most members are so inexperienced, all they want to do is follow the leader and want solutions to be handed to them from the top down.

That's where I arrived at the conclusion that the best use of parties is to organize people in groups: where the Democrats can focus on inclusion of minorities affected by incarceration and immigration, and set up SCHOOL systems to mentor and assist such members and workers knowing they don't have education and experience, so they aren't exploited for their needs. If registration for benefits, services, education and housing is set up like a campus program, then this can be managed like private universities, where students/workers earn their way through school.

The Republicans can focus on things like VA reform, military training and defense, and Constitutional education and enforcement for public health, safety and national security. Where the capitalist system focuses on profits and free market, those business leaders should get tax breaks for lending, investing or donating to mentor the leaders of social programs in setting up sustainable schools and health services, instead of relying on govt handouts.

So the business leaders on the right who don't want to promote dependence on govt can get credits for mentoring and microlending to help the leaders on the left who want to support and include the needs of poor minority groups that aren't yet able to sustain themselves without help.

That's the model I'd like to see set up, and let people choose if they want to be mentors or interns, borrowers or lenders, leaders or followers.

I have presented this model at various progressive and socialist leaning groups. the main obstacle is people not having faith that it will work.
they are so used to people fighting them over political ideas, they can't imagine people from various parties actually agreeing on a solution like this.

So the only way to find out is to propose it, and see which leaders of which groups are willing to take bits and pieces, working models already in practice that have been built on some of these elements, and compile them together into a workable program.

If every party's leadership and goals are included, then all people can share credit for their contributions. And we can use these model programs as "training grounds" for future business and govt leaders to get handson experience building a campus town, or governing a small city state, so that when running for public office, they can show a record of real life experience governing that level of budget or size of population.

So all parties would benefit from setting up such structures.

 

[Reasonable]

Question 2: What about the American Dream. Can Trump rebuild it as he claims. And how is he doing so far with that goal?

=======

The American Dream is about being able and free to work hard,
make the most of your talents and resources and opportunities
available, and most of all enjoying equal freedom, rights, and protections
to participate democratically in American society, govt, and economy,
which contributes to and leads greater growth for global society and humanity.

The American Dream is never dead.

When making a political speech, advocates have to
portray a problem and then argue they have the solution.
All within short sound bytes to market and sell their image.

So when Trump is trying to sell this point, that he
can lead America to fulfill our destiny and dreams,
he has to paint it as bad news first, and then pitch his leadership
and vision as the good news that we need to solve those problems.

I believe it is up to the people ourselves to do the same work that
Trump is doing, exercising our free speech and media to share
our ideas, visions and solutions, and rally support to implement them.

But it takes a leader like Trump who is used to putting his ideas directly into action
as a business leader, with experience organizing capital and teams of people
himself -- NOT waiting on govt to get things done.

The other party leaders, particularly on the left, depend on party or govt for power,
but the real sustainable way is for business and community leaders
to form their own local teams and build programs directly.

That's the American Dream, individual entrepreneurs and workers
starting with just a goal or vision, then working their way to the top.

This dream is not dead, but people have FORGOTTEN
that the process is to build it ourselves.

People have become used to depending or waiting on govt for solutions,
and that's why nothing was getting done.

Trump pushes to get things done, with or without govt,
finding the best solutions that make sense financially, businesswise,
economically. He didn't depend on govt before, so when he applies
his approach to working through govt, it is more like an individual taking the right idea and then working within the given system (especially strategizing between govt and media) to promote it publicly and make it happen. It isn't relying on the system to generate the solution.

But Trump cannot just say he's taking the American Dream
and working with the people to make it happen. That's too passive.

The way that Advertising works, is you play on the FEARS of the people,
you present a problem that scares them so you have their attention emotionally,
then you present the solution to sell them that idea as the fix.
This psychological approach to advertising took off around the 60s and
has been used ever since.

So Trump has to EXAGGERATE and say the American Dream is "dead,"
in order to sell the idea to the people they NEED him to save American
traditions that are under attack.

If I had to describe what is really going on with the American Dream,
people on the left are afraid they can't achieve or access equal opportunity without help of the govt. And people on the right are afraid the left is abusing govt so much, to get voters dependent so they can buy and pander to those votes, this is destroying the American traditions built on Christian, Conservative and Constitutional values that the left attacks to demonize political opponents, and thus threatening to undercut root values and traditions that are the backbone of American history, culture and future.

So Trump summarizes this fear in shorter terms, of losing the American Dream.

I'd say that people have FORGOTTEN how much work it takes building things ourselves, without relying on govt which isn't the solution.

And that people are afraid of the other party's approach as destroying the country.

Trump addresses these fears using different terms to reach the audience he is trying to market to, and it has worked.

In reality, both sides of the political spectrum are scared the other is destroying America, and that's what he's really addressing.

What it really takes to build is "doing it ourselves"
and also uniting as a country instead of fighting politically to tear each other down.

Both sides seem to have FORGOTTEN how much the govt leaders and founders in the past had to put aside their differences in order to put the country and Constitution first.

If anything, the real WORK and UNITY it takes to build America and follow our destiny and dreams has been forgotten or underestimated,
but that doesn't mean it's "dead."

These principles the American system of democratic participation is built upon are self-existent, they remain as the ultimate goal we are designed and destined to achieve, and what is missing is our faith and unity in invoking, enacting and implementing those plans.

We are distracted but not dead. We are divided but not defeated. We are threatened with self-destruction, but it is part of our learning process so we can understand and appreciate what our founding fathers went through before us. We have become spoiled and used to getting things fairly easily compared to in the past when people had to build their own towns from nothing but their own labor.

Trump appeals to the determined part of people to remember and be inspired. It is similar to when Obama called for change, and people were so hungry for that, he appealed to that need.

In both cases, the solution still depends on the people doing the work.

We have forgotten that part, but that doesn't mean the dream is dead.
Trump is trying to remind us the dream is still alive, and to fight for that.

He said it that way to sell his point, in the language of political advertising.

He grabs his audience's attention by hitting on their worst fear,
then assuring them that he can lead the fight and vision to
prevent that destruction and loss.

The irony in this, is that Trump's opponents see him as trying to destroy the American dream of people left out; so the same battlecry that rallies the right to unite, incites the left to rally in resistance, thinking they are also defending the American dream which they see Trump as a threat to.

So for his current status, Trump is successfully rallying the right in voicing and defending the Christian, Conservative, and Constitutional values and principles that have been targeted for attack politically by the left. But in the backlash where the left rallies against Trump as representing racist division and destruction of their interests, that is having the opposite effect.

It is not inspiring unity and working together for a common dream. But the fears being stoked are causing people on the left to fear even more their beliefs and goals are threatened, attacked and suppressed.

Similar to Obama, one side is celebrating what they envision as hope for their dreams,
while the other side is cowering and crying out in fear of losing what America stands for.

Trump is being successful in what he set out to do. The people and path he represents is pretty much on target. The people he does not represent are going through the same fear as when Obama was in office and scaring the liver and lights out of half the nation.

Again, nobody would be afraid if we focused on working together and building the best solutions ourselves, without depending who is in or outside of govt office.

We have to be more like Trump, and take our best ideas, build teams of support, staff and resources around them, and be prepared to implement these ourselves. The best ideas will unify people and parties on all sides, so that when these represent the public's best interest, then govt can reflect and represent the will and consent of the people.

We can achieve our dreams, but by working together and supporting each other.
Not dividing and falling apart. We either have forgotten or don't realize how much work it took the generations before us to build what we have today. That's where America is right now, and it's up to us as individuals and groups to figure out how to put our best ideas, resources and leadership together, instead of taking turns pushing one party over the other and threatening to exclude half the country when the duty of govt is to protect and represent all interests equally.

Trump is the most unfit person to ever run for office. Of course you omit his 8 hours of TV watching per day, not reading his intelligence briefs, his habitual lying, his stomping all over the 1st amendment, his deplorable daily behavior picking fights with private citizens, world leaders and everyone in between.
You ignore way too much to be taken seriously.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A student asked me my reasons for supporting Trump.
I explained that my views are not typical of most voters on either left or right.
But here are my thoughts and views:
Progressive Democrat on why I voted for Trump
including why I decided to vote for Trump
even though in Texas, I normally vote Green to help them get ballot access
since all the state electoral votes are going to Republicans anyway.

In cases where opponents stray so far off Constitutional focus on what our President and Congress
should be enforcing, such as bashing Bush and Trump with personal attacks,
I will make exceptions and vote to counteract what I feel are distracting media tactics
I don't want to reward but renounce with my vote.

I did not approve of Clinton abusing party, media, legal and corporate connections to bypass govt checks against abuses for political power and to undercut Sander to win; and if Cruz had not made up with Trump after undercutting Cruz and agreed to work together to put country and Constitution first, I probably would have
voted Green for Sanders so my vote would be useful in a state going GOP/RED anyway.

However, because Trump did reunite and restore commitments with party leaders I DO
trust to enforce the Constitution, I decided to vote for that. I did not want to endorse or
reward the political bullying that Clinton's camp did to get the nomination or the vote,
because that tactic and priority is DANGEROUS in govt. Clinton did not resolve to
put the Constitution first, but party and politics that excludes and oppresses the people
of both party and the rest of the nation. The Constitutionalists on the right have a better
chance of protecting the beliefs and inclusion of people and states by enforcing principles before party wins.

Sadly, the people who keep depending on PARTY to represent and enact their beliefs,
lose out instead of relying on Constitutional principles to exercise and invest directly without relying on govt.

So I sympathized with the grief and anger of so many constituents on the left
who somehow depended on Sanders or Clinton "to get into office" before feeling represented equally.

I blame that dependence on govt on the teachings of liberals who believe and use govt
for "promoting general welfare" instead of insisting that workers and taxpayers build, own
and manage our own social programs ourselves, democratically on the local level, and
quit waiting on party or govt leaders to dictate or manage this for us.

This is why neither Sanders nor Clinton could adequately represent the diversity of the nation.
Half the nation being conservative believes in limited govt and rewarding citizens and businesses
for building it ourselves. Relying on federal govt shifts power of decision making and resources
away from the working people at the bottom and centralizes it in federal officials we cannot reach.

That's why we keep wasting more and more resources on lobbying through parties and media
to try to influence these top levels of govt when the solutions have to come from workers, taxpayers
and businesses at the bottom, at the local levels who can enact programs freely and invest resources
directly --- voting with our dollars, our labor, our voices and time and energy where we have direct control.

The other sad thing is seeing that both Sanders on the left and Hannity on the right support
worker owned cooperatives, so that the people reclaim equal control and power, and can manage our
own "health care coops" and business/economies. Similarly, both Obama and Ben Carson on left and right advocated for MICROLENDING and business education/training as the solution to ending dependence on welfare that keeps people stuck in cycles of poverty. Both sides agree on common sense solutions, but are separated by the very party politics abused to try to get reps in Washington instead of investing locally.

Of all the candidates, it turns out Trump is in the best position
to rally for individual action and solutions. I still believe we can empower all people of all parties
to enact and invest in localized programs so everyone can achieve their party principles and beliefs.

Below is my original answer to the student who asked.

If you have comments or can help me edit one or both statements, here and below,
I'd like to present this to both my party leaders and share it publicly with Cruz and Trump,
with Sanders and Clinton, and ask for all parties to work together on separate but collaborative
plans so all goals can be achieved without imposing, infringing, or oppressing the others.

My ideal solution would be to have all these candidates organize and establish 4-5 city states
along the border, in conjunction with Mexico and businesses, churches, nonprofits and schools,
to accommodate legal residency and opportunities for all the people, workers and families
divided over the immigration crisis. See www.earnedamnesty.org I would invite supporters of
Sanders and Clinton especially to invest resources into building solutions that demonstrate
the leadership skills of these candidates, and any other leaders or interns who aspire to run for office.

Please help me edit this into a formal invitation and appeal to parties to work together
under the current administration to create a track not only for immigrants but for future
candidates and leaders who need a program that allows them to demonstrate and earn their status.

That way, we don't have to fight politically, personally or emotionally through media to lobby,
but can prove what solutions or policies work in real sustainable models that can be replicated in all districts, and which leaders prove effective in representing and serving constituents in practice, by actions, results,
size of populations managed, and work record we can document -- by building city states, campus towns, production facilities and military bases where the workers, the leaders and interns in development have a well documented record for this purpose of learning by experiene to build and manage their own districts they will share ownership and credit for, so that all people have equal opportunity and experience in government as our original Founding Fathers, leaders and settlers did. Equal ownership, equal credit and equal protection.

Instead of refuse and resist, let's reclaim, rebuild and refinance. Bring out the real leadership and real solutions from all sides. Quit dividing the country over party politics and fighting for the same positions and invest in creating jobs for ALL leaders and workers who want to own shares in building programs that work.

The sort of guy who wouldn't vote for one person because of something, but would ignore it for another person.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Atlantic Magazine very seldom endorsed a candidate for president. They’ve only done it twice in their long history.
Note what they said about Trump has come true 1000 times over.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has more than earned, through her service to the country as first lady, as a senator from New York, and as secretary of state, the right to be taken seriously as a White House contender. She has flaws (some legitimately troubling, some exaggerated by her opponents), but she is among the most prepared candidates ever to seek the presidency. We are confident that she understands the role of the United States in the world; we have no doubt that she will apply herself assiduously to the problems confronting this country; and she has demonstrated an aptitude for analysis and hard work.


Donald Trump has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of Americas nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.

Thanks Reasonable
Neither Clinton nor Trump is a Constitutionalist believer.
The difference is Clinton will not listen to but will demonize
and defy critics, corrections, or charges of abuses that are
being made on Constitutional grounds.

When Trump gets opposed or rebuked by fellow Conservatives
or Constitutionalists, at least he listens. He tries to work within the limitations to defend and push the vision he has in mind.
But he certainly has no legal strings to pull like Clinton has
to "get away' with legal violations. He has to stay in line
because people on both sides WITH legal support can smash
him the minute he breaches something. Clinton could get away
with that because the corporate interests and legal monopoly
benefit, and they keep that game going.

Trump is not a lawyer and has to pay for whatever defense he needs.
He cannot get anything done if he goes against but has to listen
and stick with the advice of both Christian and Constitutional counsel.

Clinton could listen to money and get away with whatever got the Democrats and their supporters paid.

So the system of checks and balances has been bypassed by politicians like Obama and Clinton. The Republicans gave free passes to Bush to do whatever and they would excuse it somehow.

But with Trump, he can't get away with anything outside the lines.
He can stick his foot in his mouth, or kick his own ass with it,
and he answers for his own words and actions. When it comes to govt,
it either carries the weight of public authority, or it isn't going to fly.
Trump will be stopped by opponents and critics on both left and right
if he goes too far.

At least he listens to people who are the force to keep him in line.
As long as he listens to his pastors and to Constitutionalists on
what the limits of govt are, he can avoid trouble. Even though he
mouths off when speaking for himself and can talk a good game.
That doesn't mean he can enact any of that through govt.

Clinton was more dangerous because of the connections with
legal and corporate lobbyists and interests that would implement
their own agenda, overriding due process and protests against abuses of party and power.

If Clinton had more experience, even that was being abused to violate Constitutional process and limits on govt.

So what good is having more experience if it is used for corruption
and abuse of govt for conflicts of interest.

I'd rather have someone who listens to advisors with more experience,
than someone who denies responsibility for wrongdoing, defies and refuses to follow authority and principles in order to put party and political gain first.

 

[emilynghiem]

A student asked me my reasons for supporting Trump.
I explained that my views are not typical of most voters on either left or right.
But here are my thoughts and views:
Progressive Democrat on why I voted for Trump
including why I decided to vote for Trump
even though in Texas, I normally vote Green to help them get ballot access
since all the state electoral votes are going to Republicans anyway.

In cases where opponents stray so far off Constitutional focus on what our President and Congress
should be enforcing, such as bashing Bush and Trump with personal attacks,
I will make exceptions and vote to counteract what I feel are distracting media tactics
I don't want to reward but renounce with my vote.

I did not approve of Clinton abusing party, media, legal and corporate connections to bypass govt checks against abuses for political power and to undercut Sander to win; and if Cruz had not made up with Trump after undercutting Cruz and agreed to work together to put country and Constitution first, I probably would have
voted Green for Sanders so my vote would be useful in a state going GOP/RED anyway.

However, because Trump did reunite and restore commitments with party leaders I DO
trust to enforce the Constitution, I decided to vote for that. I did not want to endorse or
reward the political bullying that Clinton's camp did to get the nomination or the vote,
because that tactic and priority is DANGEROUS in govt. Clinton did not resolve to
put the Constitution first, but party and politics that excludes and oppresses the people
of both party and the rest of the nation. The Constitutionalists on the right have a better
chance of protecting the beliefs and inclusion of people and states by enforcing principles before party wins.

Sadly, the people who keep depending on PARTY to represent and enact their beliefs,
lose out instead of relying on Constitutional principles to exercise and invest directly without relying on govt.

So I sympathized with the grief and anger of so many constituents on the left
who somehow depended on Sanders or Clinton "to get into office" before feeling represented equally.

I blame that dependence on govt on the teachings of liberals who believe and use govt
for "promoting general welfare" instead of insisting that workers and taxpayers build, own
and manage our own social programs ourselves, democratically on the local level, and
quit waiting on party or govt leaders to dictate or manage this for us.

This is why neither Sanders nor Clinton could adequately represent the diversity of the nation.
Half the nation being conservative believes in limited govt and rewarding citizens and businesses
for building it ourselves. Relying on federal govt shifts power of decision making and resources
away from the working people at the bottom and centralizes it in federal officials we cannot reach.

That's why we keep wasting more and more resources on lobbying through parties and media
to try to influence these top levels of govt when the solutions have to come from workers, taxpayers
and businesses at the bottom, at the local levels who can enact programs freely and invest resources
directly --- voting with our dollars, our labor, our voices and time and energy where we have direct control.

The other sad thing is seeing that both Sanders on the left and Hannity on the right support
worker owned cooperatives, so that the people reclaim equal control and power, and can manage our
own "health care coops" and business/economies. Similarly, both Obama and Ben Carson on left and right advocated for MICROLENDING and business education/training as the solution to ending dependence on welfare that keeps people stuck in cycles of poverty. Both sides agree on common sense solutions, but are separated by the very party politics abused to try to get reps in Washington instead of investing locally.

Of all the candidates, it turns out Trump is in the best position
to rally for individual action and solutions. I still believe we can empower all people of all parties
to enact and invest in localized programs so everyone can achieve their party principles and beliefs.

Below is my original answer to the student who asked.

If you have comments or can help me edit one or both statements, here and below,
I'd like to present this to both my party leaders and share it publicly with Cruz and Trump,
with Sanders and Clinton, and ask for all parties to work together on separate but collaborative
plans so all goals can be achieved without imposing, infringing, or oppressing the others.

My ideal solution would be to have all these candidates organize and establish 4-5 city states
along the border, in conjunction with Mexico and businesses, churches, nonprofits and schools,
to accommodate legal residency and opportunities for all the people, workers and families
divided over the immigration crisis. See www.earnedamnesty.org I would invite supporters of
Sanders and Clinton especially to invest resources into building solutions that demonstrate
the leadership skills of these candidates, and any other leaders or interns who aspire to run for office.

Please help me edit this into a formal invitation and appeal to parties to work together
under the current administration to create a track not only for immigrants but for future
candidates and leaders who need a program that allows them to demonstrate and earn their status.

That way, we don't have to fight politically, personally or emotionally through media to lobby,
but can prove what solutions or policies work in real sustainable models that can be replicated in all districts, and which leaders prove effective in representing and serving constituents in practice, by actions, results,
size of populations managed, and work record we can document -- by building city states, campus towns, production facilities and military bases where the workers, the leaders and interns in development have a well documented record for this purpose of learning by experiene to build and manage their own districts they will share ownership and credit for, so that all people have equal opportunity and experience in government as our original Founding Fathers, leaders and settlers did. Equal ownership, equal credit and equal protection.

Instead of refuse and resist, let's reclaim, rebuild and refinance. Bring out the real leadership and real solutions from all sides. Quit dividing the country over party politics and fighting for the same positions and invest in creating jobs for ALL leaders and workers who want to own shares in building programs that work.

The sort of guy who wouldn't vote for one person because of something, but would ignore it for another person.

Dear frigidweirdo
Yes, everyone does that.

The difference is when it comes to Constitutional principles and solutions that include people of all beliefs, which people are like Clinton and Obama and will pander to "party first" before input and inclusion of half the nation.

Clinton had no chance of including Conservatives she alienated and attacked by naming her enemies as the GOP and NRA.

Trump doesn't have that reliance on party to back him up in excluding the other. He draws his support from the people, the parties can't stand him.
Since both parties are divided, that's not where his support comes from.

So Trump offers the better chance for individual people to implement our own solutions. That approach is more independent than the party politics that Clinton and other candidates rely on to get anything done as a group.

We are all going to have to work independently like Trump, and quit putting party before people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A student asked me my reasons for supporting Trump.
I explained that my views are not typical of most voters on either left or right.
But here are my thoughts and views:
Progressive Democrat on why I voted for Trump
including why I decided to vote for Trump
even though in Texas, I normally vote Green to help them get ballot access
since all the state electoral votes are going to Republicans anyway.

In cases where opponents stray so far off Constitutional focus on what our President and Congress
should be enforcing, such as bashing Bush and Trump with personal attacks,
I will make exceptions and vote to counteract what I feel are distracting media tactics
I don't want to reward but renounce with my vote.

I did not approve of Clinton abusing party, media, legal and corporate connections to bypass govt checks against abuses for political power and to undercut Sander to win; and if Cruz had not made up with Trump after undercutting Cruz and agreed to work together to put country and Constitution first, I probably would have
voted Green for Sanders so my vote would be useful in a state going GOP/RED anyway.

However, because Trump did reunite and restore commitments with party leaders I DO
trust to enforce the Constitution, I decided to vote for that. I did not want to endorse or
reward the political bullying that Clinton's camp did to get the nomination or the vote,
because that tactic and priority is DANGEROUS in govt. Clinton did not resolve to
put the Constitution first, but party and politics that excludes and oppresses the people
of both party and the rest of the nation. The Constitutionalists on the right have a better
chance of protecting the beliefs and inclusion of people and states by enforcing principles before party wins.

Sadly, the people who keep depending on PARTY to represent and enact their beliefs,
lose out instead of relying on Constitutional principles to exercise and invest directly without relying on govt.

So I sympathized with the grief and anger of so many constituents on the left
who somehow depended on Sanders or Clinton "to get into office" before feeling represented equally.

I blame that dependence on govt on the teachings of liberals who believe and use govt
for "promoting general welfare" instead of insisting that workers and taxpayers build, own
and manage our own social programs ourselves, democratically on the local level, and
quit waiting on party or govt leaders to dictate or manage this for us.

This is why neither Sanders nor Clinton could adequately represent the diversity of the nation.
Half the nation being conservative believes in limited govt and rewarding citizens and businesses
for building it ourselves. Relying on federal govt shifts power of decision making and resources
away from the working people at the bottom and centralizes it in federal officials we cannot reach.

That's why we keep wasting more and more resources on lobbying through parties and media
to try to influence these top levels of govt when the solutions have to come from workers, taxpayers
and businesses at the bottom, at the local levels who can enact programs freely and invest resources
directly --- voting with our dollars, our labor, our voices and time and energy where we have direct control.

The other sad thing is seeing that both Sanders on the left and Hannity on the right support
worker owned cooperatives, so that the people reclaim equal control and power, and can manage our
own "health care coops" and business/economies. Similarly, both Obama and Ben Carson on left and right advocated for MICROLENDING and business education/training as the solution to ending dependence on welfare that keeps people stuck in cycles of poverty. Both sides agree on common sense solutions, but are separated by the very party politics abused to try to get reps in Washington instead of investing locally.

Of all the candidates, it turns out Trump is in the best position
to rally for individual action and solutions. I still believe we can empower all people of all parties
to enact and invest in localized programs so everyone can achieve their party principles and beliefs.

Below is my original answer to the student who asked.

If you have comments or can help me edit one or both statements, here and below,
I'd like to present this to both my party leaders and share it publicly with Cruz and Trump,
with Sanders and Clinton, and ask for all parties to work together on separate but collaborative
plans so all goals can be achieved without imposing, infringing, or oppressing the others.

My ideal solution would be to have all these candidates organize and establish 4-5 city states
along the border, in conjunction with Mexico and businesses, churches, nonprofits and schools,
to accommodate legal residency and opportunities for all the people, workers and families
divided over the immigration crisis. See www.earnedamnesty.org I would invite supporters of
Sanders and Clinton especially to invest resources into building solutions that demonstrate
the leadership skills of these candidates, and any other leaders or interns who aspire to run for office.

Please help me edit this into a formal invitation and appeal to parties to work together
under the current administration to create a track not only for immigrants but for future
candidates and leaders who need a program that allows them to demonstrate and earn their status.

That way, we don't have to fight politically, personally or emotionally through media to lobby,
but can prove what solutions or policies work in real sustainable models that can be replicated in all districts, and which leaders prove effective in representing and serving constituents in practice, by actions, results,
size of populations managed, and work record we can document -- by building city states, campus towns, production facilities and military bases where the workers, the leaders and interns in development have a well documented record for this purpose of learning by experiene to build and manage their own districts they will share ownership and credit for, so that all people have equal opportunity and experience in government as our original Founding Fathers, leaders and settlers did. Equal ownership, equal credit and equal protection.

Instead of refuse and resist, let's reclaim, rebuild and refinance. Bring out the real leadership and real solutions from all sides. Quit dividing the country over party politics and fighting for the same positions and invest in creating jobs for ALL leaders and workers who want to own shares in building programs that work.

The sort of guy who wouldn't vote for one person because of something, but would ignore it for another person.

Dear frigidweirdo
Yes, everyone does that.

The difference is when it comes to Constitutional principles and solutions that include people of all beliefs, which people are like Clinton and Obama and will pander to "party first" before input and inclusion of half the nation.

Clinton had no chance of including Conservatives she alienated and attacked by naming her enemies as the GOP and NRA.

Trump doesn't have that reliance on party to back him up in excluding the other. He draws his support from the people, the parties can't stand him.
Since both parties are divided, that's not where his support comes from.

So Trump offers the better chance for individual people to implement our own solutions. That approach is more independent than the party politics that Clinton and other candidates rely on to get anything done as a group.

We are all going to have to work independently like Trump, and quit putting party before people.

Again, it's not this, but something the same.

Trump has alienated the whole of the Democratic Party. Hillary said one thing.

How is it possible that Hillary is worse than Trump?

It's only possible when those people choose what is convenient for them and ignore everything that isn't convenient.

Exactly what this guy is doing.

 

[emilynghiem]

A student asked me my reasons for supporting Trump.
I explained that my views are not typical of most voters on either left or right.
But here are my thoughts and views:
Progressive Democrat on why I voted for Trump
including why I decided to vote for Trump
even though in Texas, I normally vote Green to help them get ballot access
since all the state electoral votes are going to Republicans anyway.

In cases where opponents stray so far off Constitutional focus on what our President and Congress
should be enforcing, such as bashing Bush and Trump with personal attacks,
I will make exceptions and vote to counteract what I feel are distracting media tactics
I don't want to reward but renounce with my vote.

I did not approve of Clinton abusing party, media, legal and corporate connections to bypass govt checks against abuses for political power and to undercut Sander to win; and if Cruz had not made up with Trump after undercutting Cruz and agreed to work together to put country and Constitution first, I probably would have
voted Green for Sanders so my vote would be useful in a state going GOP/RED anyway.

However, because Trump did reunite and restore commitments with party leaders I DO
trust to enforce the Constitution, I decided to vote for that. I did not want to endorse or
reward the political bullying that Clinton's camp did to get the nomination or the vote,
because that tactic and priority is DANGEROUS in govt. Clinton did not resolve to
put the Constitution first, but party and politics that excludes and oppresses the people
of both party and the rest of the nation. The Constitutionalists on the right have a better
chance of protecting the beliefs and inclusion of people and states by enforcing principles before party wins.

Sadly, the people who keep depending on PARTY to represent and enact their beliefs,
lose out instead of relying on Constitutional principles to exercise and invest directly without relying on govt.

So I sympathized with the grief and anger of so many constituents on the left
who somehow depended on Sanders or Clinton "to get into office" before feeling represented equally.

I blame that dependence on govt on the teachings of liberals who believe and use govt
for "promoting general welfare" instead of insisting that workers and taxpayers build, own
and manage our own social programs ourselves, democratically on the local level, and
quit waiting on party or govt leaders to dictate or manage this for us.

This is why neither Sanders nor Clinton could adequately represent the diversity of the nation.
Half the nation being conservative believes in limited govt and rewarding citizens and businesses
for building it ourselves. Relying on federal govt shifts power of decision making and resources
away from the working people at the bottom and centralizes it in federal officials we cannot reach.

That's why we keep wasting more and more resources on lobbying through parties and media
to try to influence these top levels of govt when the solutions have to come from workers, taxpayers
and businesses at the bottom, at the local levels who can enact programs freely and invest resources
directly --- voting with our dollars, our labor, our voices and time and energy where we have direct control.

The other sad thing is seeing that both Sanders on the left and Hannity on the right support
worker owned cooperatives, so that the people reclaim equal control and power, and can manage our
own "health care coops" and business/economies. Similarly, both Obama and Ben Carson on left and right advocated for MICROLENDING and business education/training as the solution to ending dependence on welfare that keeps people stuck in cycles of poverty. Both sides agree on common sense solutions, but are separated by the very party politics abused to try to get reps in Washington instead of investing locally.

Of all the candidates, it turns out Trump is in the best position
to rally for individual action and solutions. I still believe we can empower all people of all parties
to enact and invest in localized programs so everyone can achieve their party principles and beliefs.

Below is my original answer to the student who asked.

If you have comments or can help me edit one or both statements, here and below,
I'd like to present this to both my party leaders and share it publicly with Cruz and Trump,
with Sanders and Clinton, and ask for all parties to work together on separate but collaborative
plans so all goals can be achieved without imposing, infringing, or oppressing the others.

My ideal solution would be to have all these candidates organize and establish 4-5 city states
along the border, in conjunction with Mexico and businesses, churches, nonprofits and schools,
to accommodate legal residency and opportunities for all the people, workers and families
divided over the immigration crisis. See www.earnedamnesty.org I would invite supporters of
Sanders and Clinton especially to invest resources into building solutions that demonstrate
the leadership skills of these candidates, and any other leaders or interns who aspire to run for office.

Please help me edit this into a formal invitation and appeal to parties to work together
under the current administration to create a track not only for immigrants but for future
candidates and leaders who need a program that allows them to demonstrate and earn their status.

That way, we don't have to fight politically, personally or emotionally through media to lobby,
but can prove what solutions or policies work in real sustainable models that can be replicated in all districts, and which leaders prove effective in representing and serving constituents in practice, by actions, results,
size of populations managed, and work record we can document -- by building city states, campus towns, production facilities and military bases where the workers, the leaders and interns in development have a well documented record for this purpose of learning by experiene to build and manage their own districts they will share ownership and credit for, so that all people have equal opportunity and experience in government as our original Founding Fathers, leaders and settlers did. Equal ownership, equal credit and equal protection.

Instead of refuse and resist, let's reclaim, rebuild and refinance. Bring out the real leadership and real solutions from all sides. Quit dividing the country over party politics and fighting for the same positions and invest in creating jobs for ALL leaders and workers who want to own shares in building programs that work.

The sort of guy who wouldn't vote for one person because of something, but would ignore it for another person.

Dear frigidweirdo
Yes, everyone does that.

The difference is when it comes to Constitutional principles and solutions that include people of all beliefs, which people are like Clinton and Obama and will pander to "party first" before input and inclusion of half the nation.

Clinton had no chance of including Conservatives she alienated and attacked by naming her enemies as the GOP and NRA.

Trump doesn't have that reliance on party to back him up in excluding the other. He draws his support from the people, the parties can't stand him.
Since both parties are divided, that's not where his support comes from.

So Trump offers the better chance for individual people to implement our own solutions. That approach is more independent than the party politics that Clinton and other candidates rely on to get anything done as a group.

We are all going to have to work independently like Trump, and quit putting party before people.

Again, it's not this, but something the same.

Trump has alienated the whole of the Democratic Party. Hillary said one thing.

How is it possible that Hillary is worse than Trump?

It's only possible when those people choose what is convenient for them and ignore everything that isn't convenient.

Exactly what this guy is doing.

Dear frigidweirdo
The solutions trump believes in calls for everyone to pitch in.
Whether he encourages you to jump in because you agree,
or he scares you into acting because you don't,
it's still up to us, we the people, to make solutions happen.
He isn't going to do it, he's just one guy with a twitter account.

As for Hillary, people WANTED to get things done,
but the political messes and abuses that Clinton
and Obama and the Democrats did have derailed
and detracted, costing resources time and energy
into correcting and getting rid of unconstitutional policies.
Instead of fixing problems, the liberal policies added more to have to fix first.

Like instead of real health care reforms, unconstitutional mandates
and impossible/unsustainable programs were set up that were bound
to fail and had to be rewritten or removed and start from a different angle.

Same with the messes with LGBT policies that created worse backlash
and worse opposition to gays and transgender than before such laws were
pushed onto people from a onesided viewpoint that didn't protect all people equally.

Clinton refuses to own up to any past political problems.
So that's a huge mess that voters said no to.

Trump makes his own messes to clean up.
He doesn't hide behind party or lawyers.
They will just as soon go after his ass,
he gets no break from the media, unlike
Clinton. That level of legal monopoly, corporate
and media backing makes for huge conflicts of interest.

You can't check people in govt who have everyone paid off
and benefiting from them pushing their agenda through office.

Trump can't pull off any shenanigans like Clinton got away with.
Every wrong word and move he makes,
and he gets slammed three ways from Sunday.

So at least he has checks on any abuses he might attempt.

The rest of the work my dear frigidweirdo
is not up to the President, govt or White House.

It's up to we the people.
We can do more under Trump who can't stop us,
while Clinton could do whatever benefited the people
at the top of the party and nobody could stop that!

Do you see the difference?

 

[frigidweirdo]

A student asked me my reasons for supporting Trump.
I explained that my views are not typical of most voters on either left or right.
But here are my thoughts and views:
Progressive Democrat on why I voted for Trump
including why I decided to vote for Trump
even though in Texas, I normally vote Green to help them get ballot access
since all the state electoral votes are going to Republicans anyway.

In cases where opponents stray so far off Constitutional focus on what our President and Congress
should be enforcing, such as bashing Bush and Trump with personal attacks,
I will make exceptions and vote to counteract what I feel are distracting media tactics
I don't want to reward but renounce with my vote.

I did not approve of Clinton abusing party, media, legal and corporate connections to bypass govt checks against abuses for political power and to undercut Sander to win; and if Cruz had not made up with Trump after undercutting Cruz and agreed to work together to put country and Constitution first, I probably would have
voted Green for Sanders so my vote would be useful in a state going GOP/RED anyway.

However, because Trump did reunite and restore commitments with party leaders I DO
trust to enforce the Constitution, I decided to vote for that. I did not want to endorse or
reward the political bullying that Clinton's camp did to get the nomination or the vote,
because that tactic and priority is DANGEROUS in govt. Clinton did not resolve to
put the Constitution first, but party and politics that excludes and oppresses the people
of both party and the rest of the nation. The Constitutionalists on the right have a better
chance of protecting the beliefs and inclusion of people and states by enforcing principles before party wins.

Sadly, the people who keep depending on PARTY to represent and enact their beliefs,
lose out instead of relying on Constitutional principles to exercise and invest directly without relying on govt.

So I sympathized with the grief and anger of so many constituents on the left
who somehow depended on Sanders or Clinton "to get into office" before feeling represented equally.

I blame that dependence on govt on the teachings of liberals who believe and use govt
for "promoting general welfare" instead of insisting that workers and taxpayers build, own
and manage our own social programs ourselves, democratically on the local level, and
quit waiting on party or govt leaders to dictate or manage this for us.

This is why neither Sanders nor Clinton could adequately represent the diversity of the nation.
Half the nation being conservative believes in limited govt and rewarding citizens and businesses
for building it ourselves. Relying on federal govt shifts power of decision making and resources
away from the working people at the bottom and centralizes it in federal officials we cannot reach.

That's why we keep wasting more and more resources on lobbying through parties and media
to try to influence these top levels of govt when the solutions have to come from workers, taxpayers
and businesses at the bottom, at the local levels who can enact programs freely and invest resources
directly --- voting with our dollars, our labor, our voices and time and energy where we have direct control.

The other sad thing is seeing that both Sanders on the left and Hannity on the right support
worker owned cooperatives, so that the people reclaim equal control and power, and can manage our
own "health care coops" and business/economies. Similarly, both Obama and Ben Carson on left and right advocated for MICROLENDING and business education/training as the solution to ending dependence on welfare that keeps people stuck in cycles of poverty. Both sides agree on common sense solutions, but are separated by the very party politics abused to try to get reps in Washington instead of investing locally.

Of all the candidates, it turns out Trump is in the best position
to rally for individual action and solutions. I still believe we can empower all people of all parties
to enact and invest in localized programs so everyone can achieve their party principles and beliefs.

Below is my original answer to the student who asked.

If you have comments or can help me edit one or both statements, here and below,
I'd like to present this to both my party leaders and share it publicly with Cruz and Trump,
with Sanders and Clinton, and ask for all parties to work together on separate but collaborative
plans so all goals can be achieved without imposing, infringing, or oppressing the others.

My ideal solution would be to have all these candidates organize and establish 4-5 city states
along the border, in conjunction with Mexico and businesses, churches, nonprofits and schools,
to accommodate legal residency and opportunities for all the people, workers and families
divided over the immigration crisis. See www.earnedamnesty.org I would invite supporters of
Sanders and Clinton especially to invest resources into building solutions that demonstrate
the leadership skills of these candidates, and any other leaders or interns who aspire to run for office.

Please help me edit this into a formal invitation and appeal to parties to work together
under the current administration to create a track not only for immigrants but for future
candidates and leaders who need a program that allows them to demonstrate and earn their status.

That way, we don't have to fight politically, personally or emotionally through media to lobby,
but can prove what solutions or policies work in real sustainable models that can be replicated in all districts, and which leaders prove effective in representing and serving constituents in practice, by actions, results,
size of populations managed, and work record we can document -- by building city states, campus towns, production facilities and military bases where the workers, the leaders and interns in development have a well documented record for this purpose of learning by experiene to build and manage their own districts they will share ownership and credit for, so that all people have equal opportunity and experience in government as our original Founding Fathers, leaders and settlers did. Equal ownership, equal credit and equal protection.

Instead of refuse and resist, let's reclaim, rebuild and refinance. Bring out the real leadership and real solutions from all sides. Quit dividing the country over party politics and fighting for the same positions and invest in creating jobs for ALL leaders and workers who want to own shares in building programs that work.

The sort of guy who wouldn't vote for one person because of something, but would ignore it for another person.

Dear frigidweirdo
Yes, everyone does that.

The difference is when it comes to Constitutional principles and solutions that include people of all beliefs, which people are like Clinton and Obama and will pander to "party first" before input and inclusion of half the nation.

Clinton had no chance of including Conservatives she alienated and attacked by naming her enemies as the GOP and NRA.

Trump doesn't have that reliance on party to back him up in excluding the other. He draws his support from the people, the parties can't stand him.
Since both parties are divided, that's not where his support comes from.

So Trump offers the better chance for individual people to implement our own solutions. That approach is more independent than the party politics that Clinton and other candidates rely on to get anything done as a group.

We are all going to have to work independently like Trump, and quit putting party before people.

Again, it's not this, but something the same.

Trump has alienated the whole of the Democratic Party. Hillary said one thing.

How is it possible that Hillary is worse than Trump?

It's only possible when those people choose what is convenient for them and ignore everything that isn't convenient.

Exactly what this guy is doing.

Dear frigidweirdo
The solutions trump believes in calls for everyone to pitch in.
Whether he encourages you to jump in because you agree,
or he scares you into acting because you don't,
it's still up to us, we the people, to make solutions happen.
He isn't going to do it, he's just one guy with a twitter account.

As for Hillary, people WANTED to get things done,
but the political messes and abuses that Clinton
and Obama and the Democrats did have derailed
and detracted, costing resources time and energy
into correcting and getting rid of unconstitutional policies.
Instead of fixing problems, the liberal policies added more to have to fix first.

Like instead of real health care reforms, unconstitutional mandates
and impossible/unsustainable programs were set up that were bound
to fail and had to be rewritten or removed and start from a different angle.

Same with the messes with LGBT policies that created worse backlash
and worse opposition to gays and transgender than before such laws were
pushed onto people from a onesided viewpoint that didn't protect all people equally.

Clinton refuses to own up to any past political problems.
So that's a huge mess that voters said no to.

Trump makes his own messes to clean up.
He doesn't hide behind party or lawyers.
They will just as soon go after his ass,
he gets no break from the media, unlike
Clinton. That level of legal monopoly, corporate
and media backing makes for huge conflicts of interest.

You can't check people in govt who have everyone paid off
and benefiting from them pushing their agenda through office.

Trump can't pull off any shenanigans like Clinton got away with.
Every wrong word and move he makes,
and he gets slammed three ways from Sunday.

So at least he has checks on any abuses he might attempt.

The rest of the work my dear frigidweirdo
is not up to the President, govt or White House.

It's up to we the people.
We can do more under Trump who can't stop us,
while Clinton could do whatever benefited the people
at the top of the party and nobody could stop that!

Do you see the difference?

Ah yes, I know the old "everyone has to pitch in" thing.

The UK did this, the Conservatives to be precise. Their "everyone needs to pitch in" meant the MPs have got a 17% pay rise while everyone else has got council tax increases, interest rates way below inflation, and the like.

Trump insults EVERYONE but white men, and expects everyone to pitch in while he's screwing everyone except his rich friends.

Nice.

 

[SavannahMann]

The Atlantic Magazine very seldom endorsed a candidate for president. They’ve only done it twice in their long history.
Note what they said about Trump has come true 1000 times over.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has more than earned, through her service to the country as first lady, as a senator from New York, and as secretary of state, the right to be taken seriously as a White House contender. She has flaws (some legitimately troubling, some exaggerated by her opponents), but she is among the most prepared candidates ever to seek the presidency. We are confident that she understands the role of the United States in the world; we have no doubt that she will apply herself assiduously to the problems confronting this country; and she has demonstrated an aptitude for analysis and hard work.


Donald Trump has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of Americas nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.

It is that long service that precludes her from serious consideration. As Secretary of State Hillary violated international Sanctions, the very act that is considered intolerable when someone else does it, to send weapons to Libya. Hillary Clinton State Department approved U.S. weapons shipment to Libya despite ban

That action has led to a Civil War that even now rages flooding Europe with Refugees.

Libyan Civil War (2014–present) - Wikipedia

All so Hillary could go on TV and crow that We came, we saw, he died.

Then the CIA/State Department tried the same thing in Syria, which has led to the ongoing conflict.

If that was not enough to keep Hillary out of the White House, then what more do you need? The claim that she was uniquely qualified is insane. It would be as if the Right said that Oliver North was qualified to be in the Oval Office after his experience with Iran Contra.

The attitude of our nation since 9-11 by both parties has been might makes right. It is the worst possible justification. It is the lowest common denominator, and it is going to be panned by History, with good reason. The same way that Colonialism is shown today to be an inhumane and barbaric practice.

Every time Hillary is given a little power, she abuses it. Every time she is given a chance, she blows it. Every single damned time.