Progressive Democrat on why I voted for Trump

[AntonToo]

Any “progressive” that voted for Trump is a diluted moron that got hopped up in rightwing Hillary haterade.

Clinton is a lot of things but at least she is not an emberassing, compulsively lying ass clown like Trump.

Trump doesn’t give a shit about Constitution and will do whatever he thinks he can get away with.

Case in point - Trump is forcing the issue on tariffs, but according to the Constitution that is a congressional power.

 

[DOTR]

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

An advantage we have, a huge advantage, is that these people do not and cannot understand why we elected Trump. They will never be able to counter him because they have no idea what it is about him that we support. From the first their goal has been to "separate Trump from his base"...something they have had no success with. In fact I dont think I have ever in my lifetime seen such a singular lack of success in a political endeavor.
And that inability springs from arrogance. They long ago wrote off the white working class and drifted into another dimension. If you arent a man wearing a dress or a woman killing her offspring or a foreigner wanting to change America the Democrats have no idea how to speak to you. It is why they were annihilated in the last election becoming basically a bi-coastal fringe party.
It may not seem that way because of their choke hold on the media. But its true. A fringe party with huge media conglomerates supporting it is still just a fringe party. Hollywood makes them seem real in the same way they make spaceships and robots seem real in Star Wars.

 

[bendog]

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.

A constitutionalist seriously queries whether we will "try" "a president for life?"

 

[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.

A constitutionalist seriously queries whether we will "try" "a president for life?"

Dear bendog and antontoo
I said and agree that Trump is NOT a Constitutionalist.
What I said is he can be kept in check by Constitutionalists.
Clinton and Democrats will not check or hold their own leaders or party
to the Constitution.

but they certainly won't let Trump get away with anything they can
stop using the laws when it comes to NOT giving HIM a free pass!!!

The weakness is the liberals aren't as convicted and committed
when it comes to enforcing Constitutional laws BECAUSE they let
their party leaders override it.

However, that's where they ride on the work of the GOP and rightwing
who will argue for them.

My friend who is Green and against the ACA mandates as giving corporate
handouts to insurance and nothing to do with health care,
basically said they would let the Republicans "fight that battle for them."

So the Democrats save resources by letting Constitutionalists go after
unconstitutional abuses of power. They get what they want and they
EXHAUST the resources of the opponents this way.

Go back and read where I basically said Trump is better checked on
both left and right, while Clinton wouldn't answer to either.

NOT because he is a constitutionalist because I didn't say that,
I said he isn't. He is a populist.

But the difference is he has to listen and answer to Constitutionalists
which Clinton and Obama refused to do and their party wasn't going to stop them.

When Constitutionalists argue against Trump, the left isn't going to stop them
as they did with Obama and Clinton!

 

[AntonToo]

Dear bendog and antontoo
I said and agree that Trump is NOT a Constitutionalist.
What I said is he can be kept in check by Constitutionalists.
Clinton and Democrats will not check or hold their own leaders or party
to the Constitution.

NO.

Sorry to pop your little naive bubble but that's not how the politics work. Republican "constitutionalists" and "fiscal hawks" went into hibernation the moment election is over and a Republican got into the White House.

His immigration executive orders were unconstitutional
Why Trump’s Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional

His DOJ, under "constitutionalist" named Jeff Sessions has no problem violating constitution.
5 Ways Trump's Anti-Sanctuary City Orders Are Unconstitutional

Trump unilaterally imposing tariffs is not constituional
Opinion | Is Trump’s Tariff Plan Constitutional?


You want CONSTITUTIONAL? You elect a Democrat who Republicans take to court at every turn.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear bendog and antontoo
I said and agree that Trump is NOT a Constitutionalist.
What I said is he can be kept in check by Constitutionalists.
Clinton and Democrats will not check or hold their own leaders or party
to the Constitution.

NO.

Sorry to pop your little naive bubble but that's not how the politics work. Republican "constitutionalists" and "fiscal hawks" went into hibernation the moment election is over and a Republican got into the White House.

His immigration executive orders were unconstitutional
Why Trump’s Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional

His DOJ, under "constitutionalist" named Jeff Sessions has no problem violating constitution.
5 Ways Trump's Anti-Sanctuary City Orders Are Unconstitutional

Trump unilaterally imposing tariffs is not constituional
Opinion | Is Trump’s Tariff Plan Constitutional?


You want CONSTITUTIONAL? You elect a Democrat who Republicans take to court at every turn.

Dear antontoo
I'm the only Democrat and Constitutionalist willing to stand up
and argue BOTH sides of the immigration policies ar
unconstitutional when imposed on each other because
BOTH sides involve political beliefs equally protected.

The Constitutional solutions I have found involve including and satisfying
ALL sides' beliefs and concerns, such as I compiled in a summary here:
www.earnedamnesty.org

But leaders of both parties are too busy fighting each other
to work together on Constitutionally inclusive solutions. So if
they abridge each other's equal representation and protections,
they are both acting unconstitutionally to deprive the rights of the other
to exercise and pay for their own beliefs and programs consistent with them.

I AGREE the wall and deportation without adequate support
for due process of famlies affected are unconstitutional,
but antontoo SO ARE THE DEMANDS that taxpayers
pay for undocumented applicants instead of the SUPPORTERS
and SPONSORS agreeing to take responsibility for what they believe in supporting!

I'm the only Constitutionalist willing to argue that
both sides of the right to health care vs free market choice of health care
have EQUAL rights to exercise equal political beliefs,
so that policies establishing one and penalizing the other are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Where are you finding any Democrats enforcing Constitutional laws?
They only use that language to defend their own political beliefs,
not the spirit of the Constitution itself that would equally
defend political beliefs on the other side.

So antontoo that's why I can't find Constitutional lawyers
willing to enforce the central principles, because that means
defending and protecting BOTH sides beliefs EQUALLY.

The Republicans Conservatives and Libertarians come closer
to aligning and supporting my arguments, but the Democrats, absolutely not.
They do not invoke the spirit or authority of the Constitution
but rely on political party to push their BELIEFS. Yes they
have free exercise of their BELIEFS under the Constitution,
but they don't respect that for other people's beliefs, so it's not by Constitutional grounds.
It's only political for gain for their agenda and beliefs.

I'm glad you have faith that any leaders or lawyers
on the left might rise and put the Constitution first.

I haven't found any. And the party politics has scared off
Constitutionalist on the right who can't afford to fight all this mess legally.
Everyone's resorted to the same bullying politics to sway elections
as the short cut and pretty much given up on trying to fight
legally or legislatively because the process is too complicated
and expensive given the mass breaches from violating Constitutional lmits.

antontoo if you know Constitutional lawyers or candidates,
left or right, pls refer me to any who are REAL.

I can't find any.
I'm the only person I know making these Constitutional arguments.

Who would you recommend you have found willing to out
both parties on all these Constitutional violations and protections of equal beliefs???

 

[AntonToo]

Dear bendog and antontoo
I said and agree that Trump is NOT a Constitutionalist.
What I said is he can be kept in check by Constitutionalists.
Clinton and Democrats will not check or hold their own leaders or party
to the Constitution.

NO.

Sorry to pop your little naive bubble but that's not how the politics work. Republican "constitutionalists" and "fiscal hawks" went into hibernation the moment election is over and a Republican got into the White House.

His immigration executive orders were unconstitutional
Why Trump’s Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional

His DOJ, under "constitutionalist" named Jeff Sessions has no problem violating constitution.
5 Ways Trump's Anti-Sanctuary City Orders Are Unconstitutional

Trump unilaterally imposing tariffs is not constituional
Opinion | Is Trump’s Tariff Plan Constitutional?


You want CONSTITUTIONAL? You elect a Democrat who Republicans take to court at every turn.

Dear antontoo
I'm the only Democrat and Constitutionalist willing to stand up
and argue BOTH sides of the immigration policies ar
unconstitutional when imposed on each other because
BOTH sides involve political beliefs equally protected.

The Constitutional solutions I have found involve including and satisfying
ALL sides' beliefs and concerns, such as I compiled in a summary here:
www.earnedamnesty.org

But leaders of both parties are too busy fighting each other
to work together on Constitutionally inclusive solutions. So if
they abridge each other's equal representation and protections,
they are both acting unconstitutionally to deprive the rights of the other
to exercise and pay for their own beliefs and programs consistent with them.

I AGREE the wall and deportation without adequate support
for due process of famlies affected are unconstitutional,
but antontoo SO ARE THE DEMANDS that taxpayers
pay for undocumented applicants instead of the SUPPORTERS
and SPONSORS agreeing to take responsibility for what they believe in supporting!

I'm the only Constitutionalist willing to argue that
both sides of the right to health care vs free market choice of health care
have EQUAL rights to exercise equal political beliefs,
so that policies establishing one and penalizing the other are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Where are you finding any Democrats enforcing Constitutional laws?
They only use that language to defend their own political beliefs,
not the spirit of the Constitution itself that would equally
defend political beliefs on the other side.

So antontoo that's why I can't find Constitutional lawyers
willing to enforce the central principles, because that means
defending and protecting BOTH sides beliefs EQUALLY.

The Republicans Conservatives and Libertarians come closer
to aligning and supporting my arguments, but the Democrats, absolutely not.
They do not invoke the spirit or authority of the Constitution
but rely on political party to push their BELIEFS. Yes they
have free exercise of their BELIEFS under the Constitution,
but they don't respect that for other people's beliefs, so it's not by Constitutional grounds.
It's only political for gain for their agenda and beliefs.

I'm glad you have faith that any leaders or lawyers
on the left might rise and put the Constitution first.

I haven't found any. And the party politics has scared off
Constitutionalist on the right who can't afford to fight all this mess legally.
Everyone's resorted to the same bullying politics to sway elections
as the short cut and pretty much given up on trying to fight
legally or legislatively because the process is too complicated
and expensive given the mass breaches from violating Constitutional lmits.

antontoo if you know Constitutional lawyers or candidates,
left or right, pls refer me to any who are REAL.

I can't find any.
I'm the only person I know making these Constitutional arguments.

Who would you recommend you have found willing to out
both parties on all these Constitutional violations and protections of equal beliefs???

That's a lot of words to not address what I said.

Your thesis that Trump will be better checked on constitutionality by his own party than a Democrat would by political opposition is a fantasy.

 

[Moonglow]

way, way, way too long/dr....But I voted for Trump cause well Hillary is the wicked witch of the east and Trump is the wimpy wizard of Oz man...

 

[DOTR]

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

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.

Hillary Clintons raw use of power, without a moral compass, has left millions dead and millions more homeless and stateless. That administration and state department started conflict in the Ukraine that resulted in an eternal civil war and a destroyed country. Libya, Egypt, Syria, Tunisia...all fell into chaos thanks to the the Obama/Hillary vision of "Arab Spring". John Kerry as well.
And their slavering desire for war with the Slavs in general, and Russia in particular, informs their every action. Why now? When they were in power they sold the US out to Russia and burnt down the middle east and Ukraine to advance their globalism.

In fact, wasnt so long ago Mitt Romney was the butt of Hillary's jokes and the foil for Obama's "zinger" because he stated that Russia was a rising power we would have to deal with.

"When you were asked, what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said 'Russia.' Not Al-Qaeda; you said Russia. And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because, the Cold War's been over for 20 years."

In their inimitable way the media, always looking to dumb down the American electorate, called it a "zinger". (which is one reason Americans didnt give a damn about the Trump/Clinton debates or who won. We are tired of electing Democrats once the media declares a "zinger" has eliminated the Republican)

(By the way..he didnt deal with Al-Queda either)

But it was Obama who was overheard making treasonous remarks to the Russians about his freedom to act without fear of the American people after securing election:

“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” Obama told Medvedev, referring to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.

“Yeah, I understand,” Medvedev said.

“This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility,” Obama added.

“I understand,” Medvedev replied. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

It was that treasonous exchange that made the Democrats defensive and drove their attack on Romney as out of touch for tagging the Russians as a threat ...and led to the media calling it a "zinger"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-1980s-foreign-policy/?utm_term=.48dbaf1c6bcf

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear bendog and antontoo
I said and agree that Trump is NOT a Constitutionalist.
What I said is he can be kept in check by Constitutionalists.
Clinton and Democrats will not check or hold their own leaders or party
to the Constitution.

NO.

Sorry to pop your little naive bubble but that's not how the politics work. Republican "constitutionalists" and "fiscal hawks" went into hibernation the moment election is over and a Republican got into the White House.

His immigration executive orders were unconstitutional
Why Trump’s Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional

His DOJ, under "constitutionalist" named Jeff Sessions has no problem violating constitution.
5 Ways Trump's Anti-Sanctuary City Orders Are Unconstitutional

Trump unilaterally imposing tariffs is not constituional
Opinion | Is Trump’s Tariff Plan Constitutional?


You want CONSTITUTIONAL? You elect a Democrat who Republicans take to court at every turn.

Dear antontoo
I'm the only Democrat and Constitutionalist willing to stand up
and argue BOTH sides of the immigration policies ar
unconstitutional when imposed on each other because
BOTH sides involve political beliefs equally protected.

The Constitutional solutions I have found involve including and satisfying
ALL sides' beliefs and concerns, such as I compiled in a summary here:
www.earnedamnesty.org

But leaders of both parties are too busy fighting each other
to work together on Constitutionally inclusive solutions. So if
they abridge each other's equal representation and protections,
they are both acting unconstitutionally to deprive the rights of the other
to exercise and pay for their own beliefs and programs consistent with them.

I AGREE the wall and deportation without adequate support
for due process of famlies affected are unconstitutional,
but antontoo SO ARE THE DEMANDS that taxpayers
pay for undocumented applicants instead of the SUPPORTERS
and SPONSORS agreeing to take responsibility for what they believe in supporting!

I'm the only Constitutionalist willing to argue that
both sides of the right to health care vs free market choice of health care
have EQUAL rights to exercise equal political beliefs,
so that policies establishing one and penalizing the other are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Where are you finding any Democrats enforcing Constitutional laws?
They only use that language to defend their own political beliefs,
not the spirit of the Constitution itself that would equally
defend political beliefs on the other side.

So antontoo that's why I can't find Constitutional lawyers
willing to enforce the central principles, because that means
defending and protecting BOTH sides beliefs EQUALLY.

The Republicans Conservatives and Libertarians come closer
to aligning and supporting my arguments, but the Democrats, absolutely not.
They do not invoke the spirit or authority of the Constitution
but rely on political party to push their BELIEFS. Yes they
have free exercise of their BELIEFS under the Constitution,
but they don't respect that for other people's beliefs, so it's not by Constitutional grounds.
It's only political for gain for their agenda and beliefs.

I'm glad you have faith that any leaders or lawyers
on the left might rise and put the Constitution first.

I haven't found any. And the party politics has scared off
Constitutionalist on the right who can't afford to fight all this mess legally.
Everyone's resorted to the same bullying politics to sway elections
as the short cut and pretty much given up on trying to fight
legally or legislatively because the process is too complicated
and expensive given the mass breaches from violating Constitutional lmits.

antontoo if you know Constitutional lawyers or candidates,
left or right, pls refer me to any who are REAL.

I can't find any.
I'm the only person I know making these Constitutional arguments.

Who would you recommend you have found willing to out
both parties on all these Constitutional violations and protections of equal beliefs???

That's a lot of words to not address what I said.

Your thesis that Trump will be better checked on constitutionality by his own party than a Democrat would by political opposition is a fantasy.

Let's make a bet antontoo
At the very least we should tie if we promote this fairly.

I plan to take the proposals for govt and welfare reform
that came out of my historic district of Freedmen's Town
www.campusplan.org and www.freedmenstown.com

and pitch them to national leaders of all parties
including Trump in the White House.
see www.earnedamnesty.org

I will bet you that the best check on parties is their own
constituents and peers correcting each other to take
responsibllity for their own parties' history of wrongdoings and future of corrections

This is best done by party, and that's why I was
called to work with Democrats because they will only listen to fellow members if anybody

I will argue the best Constitutionalists who can take and lead
with these plans will come from the Republican and Conservative
and Christian camps. And on local and district levels, the progressives
the Democrats and Greens lead better among the people working by communities.

But the centralized leadership and establishing Constitutional principles
come from Conservative leadership that enforces both
Constitutional laws of the state and Christian laws of the church
so there is agreement between the two.

The Democrats don't specialize in that but in inclusion of
people regardless of status or background, so the focus
and strength of the party and their purpose is on including
and supporting people through the education and training process.

Not in enforcing and coming down with rulings that
are the job of more authoritarian leadership approaches.

The Democrats lead best from the ground up, from behind
supporting people to learn to govern and represent themselves.

The liberals should be in charge of social programs and intake
of grievances so everyone is included; and the Greens in charge
of mediating neutrally between members of groups or relations between parties,
while the Republicans are good at leading and defending from an
authoritarian position of "laying down the law" as needed for national defense
and security. Enemies will test, play and attack Democrats for being weak
for playing the part of diplomatic solutions and collaborative democratic process.

These parties attract leaders of different styles and roles.
So we shouid work with that, and set up a system where everyone
can lead and work a position that FITS their approach to govt,
either socially serving the people with domestic programs
or enforcing laws uniformly for national and global security.

@antonoo do you want to make a bet
which party will support Constitutional corrections
and restitution owed to taxpayers, being invested
in sustainable developments along the border
that all parties can participate in and use to train their party leaders??

I believe the Greens and Democrats will respond to such plans
because it will help their party goals, leadership and membership.

But the Constitutionalists who respond will come from the
Conservative and Christian ranks based on meeting Constitutional requirements
above political benefits of person or party.

I cannot find other Democrats like me.
Most Constitutionalists and Conservatives either never went with the party or left it.
I find Green progressives willing to work across party lines.
I find Libertarians and Republicans willing to put Constitution
and Christian principles first before partisan politics.

But I can't find Democrats who don't put their party process and agenda
first as their source of getting things done. They are just so dependent
on the collective authority of the party to counteract opposition,
they won't use the Constitution directly as Christians are taught to do with laws.

That's what I've found from 20 years of struggling
to stabilize my neighborhood plans that were destroyed by Democrats
selling out for power instead of investing in their own communities' plans!

So let's set up the bet.
and i will ask key leaders from all parties
how they want to develop these plans
and what is their motivation. Is it party
first, is it uniting America under Constitutional founding principles?
Is it Christian faith?

What is the driving force that will unite America
our states and parties and people under a cohesive plan,
and which leaders are willing to stand up and lead?

I'd LOVE to see who answers the call.
I personally believe that peace and justice is the name of
Christ Jesus also known as Restorative Justice.
And t his is the driving force behind human conscience
that will lead the way.

I personally use Constitutional laws to express and embody
my Christian faith in practice, while also using the Bible to
communicate the same with other Christians who use those laws, too.

But my native language is more secular like the natural laws
so the Constitution works better for me to express explain and share
my beliefs about these principles with others.

Again I can't find many people who believe this way,
much less fellow Democrats. But I'm willing to put out
the call, and see who responds. Especially asking
Trump and the White House Administration,
and see who can follow and who can lead.

Thanks!

 

[AntonToo]

Dear bendog and antontoo
I said and agree that Trump is NOT a Constitutionalist.
What I said is he can be kept in check by Constitutionalists.
Clinton and Democrats will not check or hold their own leaders or party
to the Constitution.

NO.

Sorry to pop your little naive bubble but that's not how the politics work. Republican "constitutionalists" and "fiscal hawks" went into hibernation the moment election is over and a Republican got into the White House.

His immigration executive orders were unconstitutional
Why Trump’s Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional

His DOJ, under "constitutionalist" named Jeff Sessions has no problem violating constitution.
5 Ways Trump's Anti-Sanctuary City Orders Are Unconstitutional

Trump unilaterally imposing tariffs is not constituional
Opinion | Is Trump’s Tariff Plan Constitutional?


You want CONSTITUTIONAL? You elect a Democrat who Republicans take to court at every turn.

Dear antontoo
I'm the only Democrat and Constitutionalist willing to stand up
and argue BOTH sides of the immigration policies ar
unconstitutional when imposed on each other because
BOTH sides involve political beliefs equally protected.

The Constitutional solutions I have found involve including and satisfying
ALL sides' beliefs and concerns, such as I compiled in a summary here:
www.earnedamnesty.org

But leaders of both parties are too busy fighting each other
to work together on Constitutionally inclusive solutions. So if
they abridge each other's equal representation and protections,
they are both acting unconstitutionally to deprive the rights of the other
to exercise and pay for their own beliefs and programs consistent with them.

I AGREE the wall and deportation without adequate support
for due process of famlies affected are unconstitutional,
but antontoo SO ARE THE DEMANDS that taxpayers
pay for undocumented applicants instead of the SUPPORTERS
and SPONSORS agreeing to take responsibility for what they believe in supporting!

I'm the only Constitutionalist willing to argue that
both sides of the right to health care vs free market choice of health care
have EQUAL rights to exercise equal political beliefs,
so that policies establishing one and penalizing the other are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Where are you finding any Democrats enforcing Constitutional laws?
They only use that language to defend their own political beliefs,
not the spirit of the Constitution itself that would equally
defend political beliefs on the other side.

So antontoo that's why I can't find Constitutional lawyers
willing to enforce the central principles, because that means
defending and protecting BOTH sides beliefs EQUALLY.

The Republicans Conservatives and Libertarians come closer
to aligning and supporting my arguments, but the Democrats, absolutely not.
They do not invoke the spirit or authority of the Constitution
but rely on political party to push their BELIEFS. Yes they
have free exercise of their BELIEFS under the Constitution,
but they don't respect that for other people's beliefs, so it's not by Constitutional grounds.
It's only political for gain for their agenda and beliefs.

I'm glad you have faith that any leaders or lawyers
on the left might rise and put the Constitution first.

I haven't found any. And the party politics has scared off
Constitutionalist on the right who can't afford to fight all this mess legally.
Everyone's resorted to the same bullying politics to sway elections
as the short cut and pretty much given up on trying to fight
legally or legislatively because the process is too complicated
and expensive given the mass breaches from violating Constitutional lmits.

antontoo if you know Constitutional lawyers or candidates,
left or right, pls refer me to any who are REAL.

I can't find any.
I'm the only person I know making these Constitutional arguments.

Who would you recommend you have found willing to out
both parties on all these Constitutional violations and protections of equal beliefs???

That's a lot of words to not address what I said.

Your thesis that Trump will be better checked on constitutionality by his own party than a Democrat would by political opposition is a fantasy.

Let's make a bet antontoo
At the very least we should tie if we promote this fairly.

I plan to take the proposals for govt and welfare reform
that came out of my historic district of Freedmen's Town
www.campusplan.org and www.freedmenstown.com

and pitch them to national leaders of all parties
including Trump in the White House.
see www.earnedamnesty.org

I will bet you that the best check on parties is their own
constituents and peers correcting each other to take
responsibllity for their own parties' history of wrongdoings and future of corrections

This is best done by party, and that's why I was
called to work with Democrats because they will only listen to fellow members if anybody

I will argue the best Constitutionalists who can take and lead
with these plans will come from the Republican and Conservative
and Christian camps. And on local and district levels, the progressives
the Democrats and Greens lead better among the people working by communities.

But the centralized leadership and establishing Constitutional principles
come from Conservative leadership that enforces both
Constitutional laws of the state and Christian laws of the church
so there is agreement between the two.

The Democrats don't specialize in that but in inclusion of
people regardless of status or background, so the focus
and strength of the party and their purpose is on including
and supporting people through the education and training process.

Not in enforcing and coming down with rulings that
are the job of more authoritarian leadership approaches.

The Democrats lead best from the ground up, from behind
supporting people to learn to govern and represent themselves.

The liberals should be in charge of social programs and intake
of grievances so everyone is included; and the Greens in charge
of mediating neutrally between members of groups or relations between parties,
while the Republicans are good at leading and defending from an
authoritarian position of "laying down the law" as needed for national defense
and security. Enemies will test, play and attack Democrats for being weak
for playing the part of diplomatic solutions and collaborative democratic process.

These parties attract leaders of different styles and roles.
So we shouid work with that, and set up a system where everyone
can lead and work a position that FITS their approach to govt,
either socially serving the people with domestic programs
or enforcing laws uniformly for national and global security.

@antonoo do you want to make a bet
which party will support Constitutional corrections
and restitution owed to taxpayers, being invested
in sustainable developments along the border
that all parties can participate in and use to train their party leaders??

I believe the Greens and Democrats will respond to such plans
because it will help their party goals, leadership and membership.

But the Constitutionalists who respond will come from the
Conservative and Christian ranks based on meeting Constitutional requirements
above political benefits of person or party.

I cannot find other Democrats like me.
Most Constitutionalists and Conservatives either never went with the party or left it.
I find Green progressives willing to work across party lines.
I find Libertarians and Republicans willing to put Constitution
and Christian principles first before partisan politics.

But I can't find Democrats who don't put their party process and agenda
first as their source of getting things done. They are just so dependent
on the collective authority of the party to counteract opposition,
they won't use the Constitution directly as Christians are taught to do with laws.

That's what I've found from 20 years of struggling
to stabilize my neighborhood plans that were destroyed by Democrats
selling out for power instead of investing in their own communities' plans!

So let's set up the bet.
and i will ask key leaders from all parties
how they want to develop these plans
and what is their motivation. Is it party
first, is it uniting America under Constitutional founding principles?
Is it Christian faith?

What is the driving force that will unite America
our states and parties and people under a cohesive plan,
and which leaders are willing to stand up and lead?

I'd LOVE to see who answers the call.
I personally believe that peace and justice is the name of
Christ Jesus also known as Restorative Justice.
And t his is the driving force behind human conscience
that will lead the way.

I personally use Constitutional laws to express and embody
my Christian faith in practice, while also using the Bible to
communicate the same with other Christians who use those laws, too.

But my native language is more secular like the natural laws
so the Constitution works better for me to express explain and share
my beliefs about these principles with others.

Again I can't find many people who believe this way,
much less fellow Democrats. But I'm willing to put out
the call, and see who responds. Especially asking
Trump and the White House Administration,
and see who can follow and who can lead.

Thanks!

My eyes glazed over three sentences into these musings.

You keep on calling, best of luck.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear bendog and antontoo
I said and agree that Trump is NOT a Constitutionalist.
What I said is he can be kept in check by Constitutionalists.
Clinton and Democrats will not check or hold their own leaders or party
to the Constitution.

NO.

Sorry to pop your little naive bubble but that's not how the politics work. Republican "constitutionalists" and "fiscal hawks" went into hibernation the moment election is over and a Republican got into the White House.

His immigration executive orders were unconstitutional
Why Trump’s Immigration Rules Are Unconstitutional

His DOJ, under "constitutionalist" named Jeff Sessions has no problem violating constitution.
5 Ways Trump's Anti-Sanctuary City Orders Are Unconstitutional

Trump unilaterally imposing tariffs is not constituional
Opinion | Is Trump’s Tariff Plan Constitutional?


You want CONSTITUTIONAL? You elect a Democrat who Republicans take to court at every turn.

Dear antontoo
I'm the only Democrat and Constitutionalist willing to stand up
and argue BOTH sides of the immigration policies ar
unconstitutional when imposed on each other because
BOTH sides involve political beliefs equally protected.

The Constitutional solutions I have found involve including and satisfying
ALL sides' beliefs and concerns, such as I compiled in a summary here:
www.earnedamnesty.org

But leaders of both parties are too busy fighting each other
to work together on Constitutionally inclusive solutions. So if
they abridge each other's equal representation and protections,
they are both acting unconstitutionally to deprive the rights of the other
to exercise and pay for their own beliefs and programs consistent with them.

I AGREE the wall and deportation without adequate support
for due process of famlies affected are unconstitutional,
but antontoo SO ARE THE DEMANDS that taxpayers
pay for undocumented applicants instead of the SUPPORTERS
and SPONSORS agreeing to take responsibility for what they believe in supporting!

I'm the only Constitutionalist willing to argue that
both sides of the right to health care vs free market choice of health care
have EQUAL rights to exercise equal political beliefs,
so that policies establishing one and penalizing the other are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Where are you finding any Democrats enforcing Constitutional laws?
They only use that language to defend their own political beliefs,
not the spirit of the Constitution itself that would equally
defend political beliefs on the other side.

So antontoo that's why I can't find Constitutional lawyers
willing to enforce the central principles, because that means
defending and protecting BOTH sides beliefs EQUALLY.

The Republicans Conservatives and Libertarians come closer
to aligning and supporting my arguments, but the Democrats, absolutely not.
They do not invoke the spirit or authority of the Constitution
but rely on political party to push their BELIEFS. Yes they
have free exercise of their BELIEFS under the Constitution,
but they don't respect that for other people's beliefs, so it's not by Constitutional grounds.
It's only political for gain for their agenda and beliefs.

I'm glad you have faith that any leaders or lawyers
on the left might rise and put the Constitution first.

I haven't found any. And the party politics has scared off
Constitutionalist on the right who can't afford to fight all this mess legally.
Everyone's resorted to the same bullying politics to sway elections
as the short cut and pretty much given up on trying to fight
legally or legislatively because the process is too complicated
and expensive given the mass breaches from violating Constitutional lmits.

antontoo if you know Constitutional lawyers or candidates,
left or right, pls refer me to any who are REAL.

I can't find any.
I'm the only person I know making these Constitutional arguments.

Who would you recommend you have found willing to out
both parties on all these Constitutional violations and protections of equal beliefs???

That's a lot of words to not address what I said.

Your thesis that Trump will be better checked on constitutionality by his own party than a Democrat would by political opposition is a fantasy.

Let's make a bet antontoo
At the very least we should tie if we promote this fairly.

I plan to take the proposals for govt and welfare reform
that came out of my historic district of Freedmen's Town
www.campusplan.org and www.freedmenstown.com

and pitch them to national leaders of all parties
including Trump in the White House.
see www.earnedamnesty.org

I will bet you that the best check on parties is their own
constituents and peers correcting each other to take
responsibllity for their own parties' history of wrongdoings and future of corrections

This is best done by party, and that's why I was
called to work with Democrats because they will only listen to fellow members if anybody

I will argue the best Constitutionalists who can take and lead
with these plans will come from the Republican and Conservative
and Christian camps. And on local and district levels, the progressives
the Democrats and Greens lead better among the people working by communities.

But the centralized leadership and establishing Constitutional principles
come from Conservative leadership that enforces both
Constitutional laws of the state and Christian laws of the church
so there is agreement between the two.

The Democrats don't specialize in that but in inclusion of
people regardless of status or background, so the focus
and strength of the party and their purpose is on including
and supporting people through the education and training process.

Not in enforcing and coming down with rulings that
are the job of more authoritarian leadership approaches.

The Democrats lead best from the ground up, from behind
supporting people to learn to govern and represent themselves.

The liberals should be in charge of social programs and intake
of grievances so everyone is included; and the Greens in charge
of mediating neutrally between members of groups or relations between parties,
while the Republicans are good at leading and defending from an
authoritarian position of "laying down the law" as needed for national defense
and security. Enemies will test, play and attack Democrats for being weak
for playing the part of diplomatic solutions and collaborative democratic process.

These parties attract leaders of different styles and roles.
So we shouid work with that, and set up a system where everyone
can lead and work a position that FITS their approach to govt,
either socially serving the people with domestic programs
or enforcing laws uniformly for national and global security.

@antonoo do you want to make a bet
which party will support Constitutional corrections
and restitution owed to taxpayers, being invested
in sustainable developments along the border
that all parties can participate in and use to train their party leaders??

I believe the Greens and Democrats will respond to such plans
because it will help their party goals, leadership and membership.

But the Constitutionalists who respond will come from the
Conservative and Christian ranks based on meeting Constitutional requirements
above political benefits of person or party.

I cannot find other Democrats like me.
Most Constitutionalists and Conservatives either never went with the party or left it.
I find Green progressives willing to work across party lines.
I find Libertarians and Republicans willing to put Constitution
and Christian principles first before partisan politics.

But I can't find Democrats who don't put their party process and agenda
first as their source of getting things done. They are just so dependent
on the collective authority of the party to counteract opposition,
they won't use the Constitution directly as Christians are taught to do with laws.

That's what I've found from 20 years of struggling
to stabilize my neighborhood plans that were destroyed by Democrats
selling out for power instead of investing in their own communities' plans!

So let's set up the bet.
and i will ask key leaders from all parties
how they want to develop these plans
and what is their motivation. Is it party
first, is it uniting America under Constitutional founding principles?
Is it Christian faith?

What is the driving force that will unite America
our states and parties and people under a cohesive plan,
and which leaders are willing to stand up and lead?

I'd LOVE to see who answers the call.
I personally believe that peace and justice is the name of
Christ Jesus also known as Restorative Justice.
And t his is the driving force behind human conscience
that will lead the way.

I personally use Constitutional laws to express and embody
my Christian faith in practice, while also using the Bible to
communicate the same with other Christians who use those laws, too.

But my native language is more secular like the natural laws
so the Constitution works better for me to express explain and share
my beliefs about these principles with others.

Again I can't find many people who believe this way,
much less fellow Democrats. But I'm willing to put out
the call, and see who responds. Especially asking
Trump and the White House Administration,
and see who can follow and who can lead.

Thanks!

My eyes glazed over three sentences into these musings.

You keep on calling, best of luck.

So what makes you think any Democrats
will listen to Constitutional arguments?
antontoo

 

[Asclepias]

This didnt age too well considering all that has transpired.