That is all.

👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

RACIST!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hillary isn't white? or is it because Trump is orange?

I am voting against a Clinton.....again.

That is all.

Troll.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ABC.

I'm just gonna hug my kids and cry....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am voting against a Clinton.....again.
Vote for Johnson, write someone in. Anyone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hillary isn't white? or is it because Trump is orange?

Oompa Loompas are cool...

'Welcome to all of you deplorables!' Trump boomed as thousands screamed 'Trump! Trump! Trump!' and 'We love you!'
:jump:

http://www.funnyjunk.com/Deplorable/funny-pictures/6028222/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This sums it up Nicely.. And my last post involving the buffoonery that this election represents

I couldn't agree with that more.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Vote for Johnson, write someone in. Anyone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

REALLY!!......he does not know what state he is in and the lady couldn't find her way to right airport....lol

I couldn't agree with that more.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

agreeing with the obvious....don't recall anything in the President's job description(oath of office) that mentions shaping local communities...teaching children stuff....nanny state buffoonery has led some to believe this

Hope and change ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I couldn't agree with that more.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bull !
Biggest thing at stake in this election is supreme court nomination
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This sums it up Nicely.. And my last post involving the buffoonery that this election represents

They appoint Supreme Court Judges so they affect us more than many want to admit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

GOOD Nebe
That is very American of you
I'm glad to hear you value your freedom

This sums it up Nicely.. And my last post involving the buffoonery that this election represents

There is, or should be as ScottW said, an obvious truth to your attachment. But it is a bit of a distraction, or misdirection.

This election is not about whether or not Hillary or Trump will shape our communities. And it is not a personality contest between Hillary or Trump. And portraying it as an argument over which is the most moral or "qualified" is a distraction from what it is more importantly about. Your attached note is partially correct in that WE shape our communities, not Hillary or Trump. But making that distinction distracts us from the fuller distinction, as well as connection, between WE and government.

We can only shape our communities if government doesn't prevent us from doing so. And not only that, but if it stops actively shaping our communities for us.

So, then, it is critical that WE prevent the government from doing so rather than it preventing us. WE must see to it that government is limited to the functions that WE have prescribed for it.

WE have been given the gift of a Constitution that properly limits government in order that WE can shape our communities. That document begins "WE the people . . .," not we the appointed Judges.

Insofar as WE have allowed our representatives in congressional and executive branches to abandon their limitations in that document, and insofar as appointed Judges have replaced our power to judge what is best for ourselves, and allowed the Constitution they have sworn to defend to be abandoned, it is WE who have progressively been limited in our once unalienable power to shape our lives. And the government has more and more been freed to do so.

If WE wish, truly wish, to stop that trend and to regain our power to shape our communities, we must use the remaining power given to us, the power to vote, to put in place the best chance to appoint Judges who will again abide by their oath and put us back on course to a great country in which WE the people decide on how, and in which way, WE shape our lives and our communities.

The campaign is most importantly about which candidates, not only for President, but for Congress are most likely to abide by their Constitutional oaths, and who will more likely appoint Judges who will do the same.

And, yes, as your attachment says, and the Founders also said, WE must have sound morals. That morality is civic and is about the soundness of our dedication to be WE the people who vote not for personal or group entitlements or special "rights," but for the freedom to create our own entitlements. And that morality firstly insists that WE THE PEOPLE protect our Constitutionally guaranteed rights. It is WE who created the document which guaranties our rights. So WE are obliged to protect it or lose those rights.

Otherwise, WE will ultimately submit to the overriding power of government. And if we choose not to submit, we will have to start all over with some new revolution and formation of some new founding document. But why do so when WE already have a uniquely good one? If WE do not read and understand that document, and take on the responsibility of protecting it, then WE are no longer the united people who have the ultimate power, but we are just little separate grubbers fighting each other and seeking the permission of and gifts from government. The great WE with unalienable rights will just be we the various supplicants seeking the rights that government may give us. And it will be a central and unlimited government who will shape our communities.

Outstanding post detbutch. Well stated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You can boil this problem down to the fact that there are parents out there that expect teachers to be responsible for how their children preform at school. That work ethic is taught at home by 2 solid parents who love each other and their children. If you don't have a solid family you can't have solid kids. I'm all for a happy tranny population in Provincetown but not as parents.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's mind boggling that some people think an erratic, habitually dishonest, bigoted and conspiracy driven scam artist is going to nominate Justices who fit any certain profile.

It's mind boggling that some people think an erratic, habitually dishonest, bigoted and conspiracy driven scam artist is going to nominate Justices who fit any certain profile.

She has already said she is against guns and obviously will choose SCJ who would follow that, what is so difficult to understand? So maybe you are finally coming around

She has already said she is against guns and obviously will choose SCJ who would follow that, what is so difficult to understand? So maybe you are finally coming around
Clinton isn't against "guns," she's against "some guns" and a lot of very smart military people agree with her.

If that alone is a reason to support Trump we're farked.

Clinton isn't against "guns," she's against "some guns" and a lot of very smart military people agree with her.


Some very smart people disagree with her too....I guess they don't count.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some very smart people disagree with her too....I guess they don't count.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The point is her position isn't extreme, but people want to make it out like it is.

It's mind boggling that some people think an erratic, habitually dishonest, bigoted and conspiracy driven scam artist is going to nominate Justices who fit any certain profile.

Most Presidents in the past have been described by some or all of your list of memes for, I presume, Trump. They can absolutely be applied to Hillary. Some outstanding Justices have been nominated by those Presidents in spite of how they were characterized by those that didn't like them. It's not mind boggling at all.

In the case of Hillary vs. Trump, she will choose Progressive minded nominees. It is no longer in dispute among honest observers that Progressives believe the Constitution is outdated and an impediment to Progressive ideals of good government. And the historical record shows that the Progressive ideal is an Administrative State run by experts who know what is best and must not be inhibited by outmoded constitutional text. Progressives humor the Constitution only by insisting it must change, and that change is not by amendment, but by Judicial decisions and precedents which are concocted not by adherence to constitutional text, rather they are made by personal opinions of Judges who favor their notions of social justice and the ability of the State to impose those notions in spite of popular will, even when expressed by the vote.

The Progressive movement and its control in politics and influence in the Court have basically removed the vast residuum of rights which were left to The People in the Constitution, as well as eroded much of the Bill of Rights and will erode more when opportunity to do so by Progressive Court decisions arises. And it has created a vastly more powerful centralized political machinery that is not only dangerously beyond what was imagined at the founding and the Constitution it created, but has much more power and scope over the citizenry than the monarchy which was revolted against had over the colonists.

Trump, on the other hand, is not going to nominate Justices because of any personal philosophical motivation. He has already posted a list of potential nominees who are not, at present, Progressive. What they may turn out to be--who knows. But I doubt that he made those choices on his own. He has said that he will pick good advisors. No doubt that applies not only to how he operates as President, but to his Supreme Court nominees as well. The picks will be left to good advisors who, presumably, will be more favorable to the Constitution as written, not to some supposedly "living breathing" thing which depends on the whim of legislators and Judges.

The point is her position isn't extreme, but people want to make it out like it is.

Her position (being against SOME guns) has been tried. It didn't work. Right? Didn't we have an assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire?

How about we do things that will actually help, like encouraging the kind of parenting that Nebe alluded to, instead of mocking it? The deplorable bitter clingers, seem to include a lot of people who epitomize the values that allow normal Americans to live happy, successful lives.

But let's pretend that the issue is that Trump won't disavow David Duke, to which he should respond, "as soon as my opponent disavows Al Sharpton".

If he shows up at all in the debates, she will be in trouble. There is SO MUH to beat her with.

Obama's economy...trillions added to the debt, with more people in poverty and on assistance, and pathetic GDP growth. That, folks, is what "failure" looks like. I think median wages are still down, too? For sure, the blacks that liberals pretend to care about, aren't a lot better off.

It's mind boggling that some people think an erratic, habitually dishonest, bigoted and conspiracy driven scam artist is going to nominate Justices who fit any certain profile.

power tool :hihi:

"Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses"(hookers).”

"Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses"(hookers).”
If you'd lift a finger you'd know why this is a really ignorant and stupid thing to post. Or you're just spreading misinformation for fun.

If you'd lift a finger you'd know why this is a really ignorant and stupid thing to post. Or you're just spreading misinformation for fun.

name calling power tool....:rude:

not surprising when Hillary needs a private jet to travel 20 miles probably yapping about global warming and unequal income distribution the whole way


Despite taking in an additional $30 million in 2014, the Clinton Foundation spent 40 percent less on charitable grants in 2014 than in 2013. Even as it slashed charitable spending, the foundation increased the amount spent on salaries, employee benefits and compensation by $5 million in 2014. The foundation also spent $5 million more “other expenses” in 2014.

It's mind boggling that some people think an erratic, habitually dishonest, bigoted and conspiracy driven scam artist is going to nominate Justices who fit any certain profile.

He came out with a list of people who he would pick from....Has Hillary come out with a list or should I assume it is one of many who cover her arse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's mind boggling that some people think an erratic, habitually dishonest, bigoted and conspiracy driven scam artist is going to nominate Justices who fit any certain profile.

What's mind-boggling, is that you only see one candidate who has issues with the truth.

he's bitterly clinging to her

name calling power tool....:rude:

not surprising when Hillary needs a private jet to travel 20 miles probably yapping about global warming and unequal income distribution the whole way


Despite taking in an additional $30 million in 2014, the Clinton Foundation spent 40 percent less on charitable grants in 2014 than in 2013. Even as it slashed charitable spending, the foundation increased the amount spent on salaries, employee benefits and compensation by $5 million in 2014. The foundation also spent $5 million more “other expenses” in 2014.
Are you working under the assumption that two wrongs make a right?

What's mind-boggling, is that you only see one candidate who has issues with the truth.
Trump either outright lies or just makes stuff up pretty much every time he opens his mouth. He does it as strategy to distract, confuse and toy with the media. It's embarrassing. That people lap it up is disturbing.

There's no way to compare the two.

Are you working under the assumption that two wrongs make a right?

that describes your average Clinton clinger :uhuh:

Her position (being against SOME guns) has been tried. It didn't work. Right? Didn't we have an assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire?


Emphasis added.

between Obama funding terrorism and the Clinton's fleecing the poorest among us...I'm really starting to be concerned about the direction of the democrat party

Trump either outright lies or just makes stuff up pretty much every time he opens his mouth. He does it as strategy to distract, confuse and toy with the media. It's embarrassing. That people lap it up is disturbing.

There's no way to compare the two.

you've never listened to a Clinton speech??

T

There's no way to compare the two.

Trump is more likable.....and has better hair...and dresses better...and has a better looking spouse and daughter(sorry Paul)...and I don't think his spouse is a sexual predator....etc...

What part of the 2nd amendment is so hard to understand ? " The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed "

So spence, you support infringing on those rights?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump either outright lies or just makes stuff up

He does what you do. And what Hillary does. And what Obama does. Except Trump is more original.

He creates new "memes." You other guys just keep repeating the same old ones over and over--"racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, sexist, misogynists, haters, hate-magnets," and on and on. Hillary just did it with her basket of memes which were supposed to describe her newer meme, the "deplorables". Yeah, she kind of did create a new one.

If you want to call them outright lies, Trump doesn't own memetic aspersions exclusively. The fact that you're suckered into believing your political paramour's memes says more about you than what you try to say about Trump.

pretty much every time he opens his mouth.

"pretty much every time he opens his mouth" is a sort of meme. Shame on you resorting to such tactics.

He does it as strategy to distract, confuse and toy with the media. It's embarrassing. That people lap it up is disturbing.

And Hillary doesn't??? Maannn . . . your are deep in the tank. Come up for some fresh air. Notice, I used some memes.

There's no way to compare the two.

That entire sentence is a an old and successful meme. As far as it being true, that's a far different matter. Between the two, there are comparisons and differences. So, WTF are you talking about?

That entire sentence is a an old and successful meme. As far as it being true, that's a far different matter. Between the two, there are comparisons and differences. So, WTF are you talking about?

He does what I do? That's insulting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What part of the 2nd amendment is so hard to understand ? " The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed "

So spence, you support infringing on those rights?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You didn't define arms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He does what I do? That's insulting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Comparing you to Trump might be insulting to Trump. Nonetheless, there is a comparison when it comes to hurling insults.

Comparing you to Trump might be insulting to Trump. Nonetheless, there is a comparison when it comes to hurling insults.
That's intellectually dishonest and you know better. I guess in the alt right world this is all justified. Conservatism is dead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You didn't define arms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Neither does the Constitution. If the Framers had intended to specify only specific weapons, they would have done so. Obviously, they meant "arms" in the general meaning of military or other weapons.

Neither does the Constitution. If the Framers had intended to specify only specific weapons, they would have done so. Obviously, they meant "arms" in the general meaning of military or other weapons.
So I guess nukes are in scope then. Those are pretty general in the meaning of military or other weapons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's intellectually dishonest and you know better. I guess in the alt right world this is all justified. Conservatism is dead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I stated what I consider to be true. Trump is far more accomplished than you are. At least as far as I know. And just because you think that the characterizations with which you freely and continuously define those with whom you politically disagree are not insulting doesn't mean that they aren't. And, certainly, your saying them does not make them true.

And if conservatism is dead, it is because conservatives abandoned it. They may have killed it more surely than any insults you or your Progressive idol's could ever have done. Or, perhaps I should be more generous and say that "conservatives" have stopped fully and forcefully being conservative. And they have become fearful of the phony insults and "memes" cast their way by Mainstream Media and by fellow travelers like you.

And maybe they have stopped being conservative because the word doesn't explain what they are supposed to be conservative about. The Alt Right is not afraid. It might seem over the top to you, but it is a more effective antidote to authoritarianism than is the meager, mealy-mouthed, fearful accommodation that establishment Republicans give to the left's encroachment on our liberties. The Alt Right, in its cultural libertarianism, is far more faithful to our Constitution's principals than many of those that are referred to as "conservative."

Some on this forum think you're just trolling when you say outrageous stuff. I think you are sincere. I think you actually believe what you say. I don't think you have the slightest notion of how outrageous you often are. And you certainly are blind to how similar your outrageousness is to Trump's, or the Alt Right's.

So I guess nukes are in scope then. Those are pretty general in the meaning of military or other weapons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So I guess you're an extremist in spite of your pretension that you aren't. Who is it that can afford to buy an arsenal of nukes? And where do they buy them? At your local gun shop or at Walmart? Can they even find a legitimate nuke manufacturer that would fill their order?

I suppose if Trump or Soros could afford diminishing their fortunes merely to buy a bunch of nukes, and found a legitimate manufacturer who would sell them, they would have a right to do so. On the other hand, there seem to be worldwide treaties banning the ownership of nukes by those who don't already have them. And it seems that the vast majority of people support that. And I suppose that if a majority of American citizens by vote in three fourth of the States supported an amendment to the Constitution that limited or abolished the second amendment and the Supreme Court held that as constitutional, that would be the end of it.

And why do you not believe that is the Progressive end game?

Trump either outright lies or just makes stuff up pretty much every time he opens his mouth. He does it as strategy to distract, confuse and toy with the media. It's embarrassing. That people lap it up is disturbing.

There's no way to compare the two.

Trump is more juvenile.

Her deplorables comment was at least as offensive, and inappropriate, as anything he has said. The impact on the polling since she said it, would seem to indicate I am right.

Spence, you are literally the only person I know, besides her, who doesn't think she lied about the sniper thing. Your radar is off.

What part of the 2nd amendment is so hard to understand ? " The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed "

So spence, you support infringing on those rights?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course he does. That's what liberalism is. He also supports infringing upon the right to freedom of religion. That's just as explicit in the Constitution as the right to keep and bear arms.

That's intellectually dishonest and you know better. I guess in the alt right world this is all justified. Conservatism is dead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Conservatism is dead"

THAT'S not intellectually dishonest?

As I type this, the Republicans control both houses of the US Congress, they hold a big majority of governorships and state legislatures, and the biggest horse's ass we could ever nominate, is neck and neck with the head of the largest liberal political machine on the planet?

That's "dead" to you?

Put down the Kool Aid and calm down.

The left wing doesn't have a problem with nuts? Harry Reid, when he was the majority leader in the Senate, lied, and said that Mitt Romney didn't pay any taxes. When he was proven wrong, a reporter asked Reid if he admitted lying. Reid said no, because Romney lost?

That was the majority leader in the US Senate. You support that tactic?

Comparing you to Trump might be insulting to Trump. Nonetheless, there is a comparison when it comes to hurling insults.

I don't think Trumps wife tells him what to say
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And why do you not believe that is the Progressive end game?
Because it's not. The vast majority of Americans believe in legal, responsible gun ownership with some limitations...not repealing the Second Amendment. Only the *extreme* fringe left wishes to abolish.

Because it's not. The vast majority of Americans believe in legal, responsible gun ownership with some limitations...not repealing the Second Amendment. Only the *extreme* fringe left wishes to abolish.

The NRA is the enemy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe - you really voting for Trump? Really? Truly? Were you drinking?

You can boil this problem down to the fact that there are parents out there that expect teachers to be responsible for how their children preform at school. That work ethic is taught at home by 2 solid parents who love each other and their children. If you don't have a solid family you can't have solid kids. I'm all for a happy tranny population in Provincetown but not as parents.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree. Having seen many single parent kids (and having been one for a while), 2 healthy parent environment is worlds ahead of a broken family or worse. Though I don't know where to go on the tranny comment :tm:(I know some same sex couples that a great parents - the tranny thing might be a bridge too far - would need to see what the numbers and studies say - not the hugatherapy types)

Clinton isn't against "guns," she's against "some guns" and a lot of very smart military people agree with her.

If that alone is a reason to support Trump we're farked.

And many do not.

Trump either outright lies or just makes stuff up pretty much every time he opens his mouth. He does it as strategy to distract, confuse and toy with the media. It's embarrassing. That people lap it up is disturbing.

There's no way to compare the two.

Hillary outright lies, makes stuff up, and has the media covering for her. Though she does not suffer to as high a degree of mental touretts that Trump does.

Because it's not. The vast majority of Americans believe in legal, responsible gun ownership with some limitations...not repealing the Second Amendment. Only the *extreme* fringe left wishes to abolish.

There is the legitimate way of repealing the Second Amendment--the amendment process itself. Repeal the legitimate way is not possible as long as the "vast majority of Americans" are against it. And persuading the vast majority with the ongoing propaganda war against private gun ownership can take too long to win.

Repeal in the illegitimate way, placing "some limitations," and then some more, and then some more, through bogus "interpretations" until the Second Amendment is meaningless is a faster, surer way to do it.

What was once the *extreme* fringe left has now become the mainstream left--the Progressive left. And Progressives are not merely about repealing this or that Amendment. They want to reinterpret the entire Constitution, and in such a way that limitations on government are removed. The Second Amendment is just another tidbit (albeit a rather large tidbit) among the interpretive destructions that have already been accomplished.

[QUOTE=JohnR;1108573]Nebe - you really voting for Trump? Really? Truly? Were you drinking?

Many of us are voting for Trump, not because of who he personally is, but because he is on the ticket for the party that has any realistic chance of reversing the Progressive takeover of the American political process and reshaping it into their own authoritarian image.

Trump got the nomination. For good or ill, that's the big elephant fact in the room. If he wins, he won't be around forever. Probably only one term, if he lasts that long. And we still haven't been transformed to the point that the President is a total dictator. We're inching toward that, at least toward the point where he is the visible figurehead of an all-powerful central government.

So he will be held in check not only by Progressives, but by those in his party who oppose that kind of transformation. Because so many in his party oppose him, his use of the bully pulpit will only go as far as his majority in Congress will allow him--if he has a majority. That would, as well, at least temporarily, hold in check our trajectory into authoritarianism. So the only real concern, as far as the future direction of the country goes, would be whom he nominates for the Court. And, like anything else he will do, he will be advised. And, I am guessing, his advisers won't be Progressive.

[QUOTE=JohnR;1108573]Nebe - you really voting for Trump? Really? Truly? Were you drinking?

Many of us are voting for Trump, not because of who he personally is, but because he is on the ticket for the party that has any realistic chance of reversing the Progressive takeover of the American political process and reshaping it into their own authoritarian image.

Trump got the nomination. For good or ill, that's the big elephant fact in the room. If he wins, he won't be around forever. Probably only one term, if he lasts that long. And we still haven't been transformed to the point that the President is a total dictator. We're inching toward that, at least toward the point where he is the visible figurehead of an all-powerful central government.

So he will be held in check not only by Progressives, but by those in his party who oppose that kind of transformation. Because so many in his party oppose him, his use of the bully pulpit will only go as far as his majority in Congress will allow him--if he has a majority. That would, as well, at least temporarily, hold in check our trajectory into authoritarianism. So the only real concern, as far as the future direction of the country goes, would be whom he nominates for the Court. And, like anything else he will do, he will be advised. And, I am guessing, his advisers won't be Progressive.

For starters - I understand why people vote for Trump - good and bad. I am shocked that Nebe is there so I suspect a high :smokin: degree of mischief in the post ;)

I can't vote for Trump. I just can't. We have the candidate that has done wrong in ForPol and we have the candidate that will do wrong in ForPol. I don't see a high degree of difference between the two (though shockingly HC is not as bad as DT). Hillary will digest things to a fault before making a bad decision, The Donald will ready and fire no aiming.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sizing-up-the-next-commander-in-chief-1474064606

What was once the *extreme* fringe left has now become the mainstream left--the Progressive left. And Progressives are not merely about repealing this or that Amendment. They want to reinterpret the entire Constitution, and in such a way that limitations on government are removed. The Second Amendment is just another tidbit (albeit a rather large tidbit) among the interpretive destructions that have already been accomplished.
Under Obama, one of these *extreme* fringe leftists you speak about gun ownership and gun rights have gone up. Is he just really bad at it?

[QUOTE=detbuch;1108577]
Hillary will digest things to a fault before making a bad decision, The Donald will ready and fire no aiming.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sizing-up-the-next-commander-in-chief-1474064606

Hillary has been digesting things all her political life, and she still comes up with bad decisions. I don't think it's so much the digesting as it is about eating bad politics in the first place which leads to her decisions. That won't change no matter how much she digests the poisoned meat.

As for Trump, according to pundits including Spence, his every move is calculated. It would have taken a lot of calculating in his business ventures. Some good, some bad. And he won't be making decisions on his own whim. He surrounds himself with "good" advisers. And his party will, no doubt, be advising the hell out of him. It's their Arse, not just his. The image I get of him is that he likes to take the credit for other people's good work.

Anyway, if we have already arrived at the point where the President can, without the approval of Congress, do whatever he wants, then it is too late. If we are at that point, then the system, along with the country, is in for a huge collapse.

Under Obama, one of these *extreme* fringe leftists you speak about gun ownership and gun rights have gone up. Is he just really bad at it?

That is so hilarious. Are you imputing the rise of gun ownership and whatever rights have been solidified (not gone up) in the Courts to the efforts of Obama? Is that what you call intellectual honesty?

You're deeper in the tank than I thought.

As for Trump, according to pundits including Spence, his every move is calculated.
Quite the contrary, I've repeatedly said he's very erratic. I do think his offensive remarks are a combination of calculation and just revealing who he really is.


It would have taken a lot of calculating in his business ventures. Some good, some bad. And he won't be making decisions on his own whim. He surrounds himself with "good" advisers. And his party will, no doubt, be advising the hell out of him. It's their Arse, not just his. The image I get of him is that he likes to take the credit for other people's good work.
And lie about his numerous failures and scandals. Must have been nice to start a career with millions of dollars and the system in your father's pocket. When that cashflow dried up there's always Wall Street to fleece, and the taxpayers. Good thing he's possibly got Russian oligarchs propping his business up. One thing Trump is good at is profiting off of other's losses.

Anyway, if we have already arrived at the point where the President can, without the approval of Congress, do whatever he wants, then it is too late. If we are at that point, then the system, along with the country, is in for a huge collapse.
I think we're a long way from that.

That is so hilarious. Are you imputing the rise of gun ownership and whatever rights have been solidified (not gone up) in the Courts to the efforts of Obama?
That's not what I said...

And lie about his numerous failures and scandals. .

Boy howdy, are you selective in requiring honesty in your candidates. Hilary passes your honesty test...that must be some curve you grade on...Kate Upton couldn't hope for such curves.

hillary isn't white? or is it because Trump is orange?
the latter
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c66/ravenob1/DT-Orange.png

Under Obama, one of these *extreme* fringe leftists you speak about gun ownership and gun rights have gone up. Is he just really bad at it?
Really? You're going to throw that statement out there like that and not quantify it? How about stating why gun ownership has gone up?

Quite the contrary, I've repeatedly said he's very erratic. I do think his offensive remarks are a combination of calculation and just revealing who he really is.

You said "Trump either outright lies or just makes stuff up pretty much every time he opens his mouth. He does it as strategy to distract, confuse and toy with the media." Sounds pretty calculating to me--and every time he opens his mouth. Sounds like he is always calculating, not very erratic.

And lie about his numerous failures and scandals. Must have been nice to start a career with millions of dollars and the system in your father's pocket. When that cashflow dried up there's always Wall Street to fleece, and the taxpayers. Good thing he's possibly got Russian oligarchs propping his business up. One thing Trump is good at is profiting off of other's losses.

The way you put it, it sounds like he really knows how to work the system. Sounds pretty savvy. Sounds pretty effective. He knows how to get things done in a milieu of corruption such as existed in New York and New Jersey(and exists now in most government and big union entities). You had to know the right people who could help you work with and around corrupt unions, corrupt politicians and corrupt State, City, and Federal officials, as well as dangerous Mafia bosses. I'm sure Trump learned a lot of things about big money being in bed with government, and with shady people who had to be dealt with. He knew he had to cozy up to Democrats, attend a wedding or two, make some big donations. You know, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

Sounds like he knows how to make deals with powerful people and groups. Perhaps he's learned enough to handle shysters like Putin and Iranian bureaucrats without giving away the store.

As for profiting off of other's losses, that's what big money people do. Your boy Warren Buffet is good at that. If you are in the stock market in any way, you do it too. And that's what businesses do when they compete with others.

I think we're a long way from that.

I hope your right, except that "a long way from" still implies that it will happen. You progressives are very persistent.

But if that is so (that we have not already arrived at the point where the President can, without the approval of Congress, do whatever he wants), then why are you guys so afraid of Trump? Perhaps, you should all be more afraid of our corrupted, authoritarian government. And maybe Trump can be the guy who blows it up.

exactly right debutch

I'd pay money to see a debate between you and spence rather than watch a presidential debate

One thing Trump is good at is profiting off of other's losses.


.

Hmmm...your candidate, as an attorney, defended a man who raped a child. That's not profiting from someone else's loss?

Do you have ANY principles? I mean, actual principles? Other than conservative=bad, and liberal=good?

Hillary mentioned bomb yesterday....socialist news media edits it out and attacks Trump for the word bomb.....:)