I'm voting for trump.
 

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.

Troll.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ABC.

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

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

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/...tures/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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

power tool :hihi: