You clowns laugh loud and long at yourselves now.
I'll check back in here a year from now and have the last laugh at ya.

The very fact of his multiple bankruptcies shows he is reckless and and the contracts he signed show his word is proven to be worthless, the man lacks integrity.

Nothing like Obama then? LOL, reread what you just posted.

I would not buy a used car from that man or anything else for that manner, he has proven to be a self-serving robber baron and should be shunned by those who believe in integrity regardless of what you think about Obama.

---

You clowns laugh loud and long at yourselves now.
I'll check back in here a year from now and have the last laugh at ya.

The very fact of his multiple bankruptcies shows he is reckless and and the contracts he signed show his word is proven to be worthless, the man lacks integrity.

Nothing like Obama then? LOL, reread what you just posted.

I would not buy a used car from that man or anything else for that manner, he has proven to be a self-serving robber baron and should be shunned by those who believe in integrity regardless of what you think about Obama.

With Mark, as many, it is tit-for-tat. That argument won't work with him,

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Sarge that maybe true but the facts demonstrate Trump is amoral and cares not of the consequences of his behavior as long as he profits. Trump does not know what it means to take the the high road. If that is what Mark wants I feel pity for him, if that what the country wants I feel pity for the country. I personally think we can be much better than that.

---

I shiver when I think of Trump being president and Kim of DPRK making another bellicose statement with a couple artillery shells and Trump in one of his moods responds by pushing the button. Then China pushes theirs and the world comes to an end. Well, global warming would be solved.

---

Sarge that maybe true but the facts demonstrate Trump is amoral and cares not of the consequences of his behavior as long as he profits. Trump does not know what it means to take the the high road. If that is what Mark wants I feel pity for him, if that what the country wants I feel pity for the country. I personally think we can be much better than that.

And this is different from ANY other politician ANYWHERE?

That said, Trump is a populist. Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

Sarge that maybe true but the facts demonstrate Trump is amoral and cares not of the consequences of his behavior as long as he profits. Trump does not know what it means to take the the high road. If that is what Mark wants I feel pity for him, if that what the country wants I feel pity for the country. I personally think we can be much better than that.

And this is different from ANY other politician ANYWHERE?

That said, Trump is a populist. Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

I think the problem is, is that we don't really know what Trump is.

Did he start this campaign for publicity and it got out of hand?
Is he a troll trying to make the Republicans party tear itself apart to give Hilary a better chance of getting in?
Is he really a deranged narcissist and he actually believes the stuff he says?

The problem is, I don't know. Could we be giving him too much credit or too little credit?

If he is doing it to help Hilary he may well drop out of the race just when it is going to cause the most disarray for the Republicans.

If he is doing it for sh*ts and giggles, we have no way of knowing where this will end.

If he is a deranged narcissist as he appears to be, then we should all be very afraid. The US could be on the brink of fascism.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Es99...

#1 - MajorKong is partially correct. Trump is a Populist.

#2 - Yes... He does believe what he says.

Trump, as I have Posted. Is saying what probably most electorate, are saying and believing. In the privacy of their homes.

From what I understand, most of the US electorate is actually left wing, so I don't believe that. I suspect its a vocal minority. However, with the way your electoral boundaries are gerrymandered, who knows what will happen.

The American Electorate is rightfully scared regarding the Orwellian Left Wing Speech Police. The attacks against the Free Exercise of their Religion. International Capitalists, along and Left Wing Ideologues (Unlimited Immigration), destroying their jobs and futures.

This is nonsense. I suspect you make such general sweeping statements just to get a reaction. Everything you wrote here is just such utter silliness that its not worth the effort to refute it.

But, and a BIG But...

The American Electorate is picking-and-choosing which Trump 'Solutions' they agree with. And dismissing the others as mere hyperbole.

That is the danger. They don't understand he means to implement all.

Agreed.

---

Reality Internet Personality

And this is different from ANY other politician ANYWHERE?

Major I would say that is a hasty generalization

---

And this is different from ANY other politician ANYWHERE?

Major I would say that is a hasty generalization

Every politician is a flip flop man. Just show him an opinion poll on a subject, taken of likely voters, and now he knows what he believes in and has since he was born. Where are the statesmen?

---

From what I understand, most of the US electorate is actually left wing, so I don't believe that. I suspect its a vocal minority.

I wouldn't call them left wing, centrist would be a much better description. They aren't for a left wing position of say a Mao style Cultural Revolution were true left style government is imposed and private property rights do not exist.

However, with the way your electoral boundaries are gerrymandered, who knows what will happen.

For president that would be the electoral college. Tiny right wingnut states that should have half a vote get three and big center states have their rights diluted.

---

From what I understand, most of the US electorate is actually left wing, so I don't believe that. I suspect its a vocal minority.

I wouldn't call them left wing, centrist would be a much better description. They aren't for a left wing position of say a Mao style Cultural Revolution were true left style government is imposed and private property rights do not exist.

However, with the way your electoral boundaries are gerrymandered, who knows what will happen.

For president that would be the electoral college. Tiny right wingnut states that should have half a vote get three and big center states have their rights diluted.

There is a whole gamut of left wing idologies, maoism is extreme and I am not even sure it qualifies as left wing. You are correct that American left wing is more like the rest of the world centrists though. However, I do believe that most Americans are actually liberal in nature and want to do their bit to help others less fortunate than themselves.

---

Reality Internet Personality

However, I do believe that most Americans are actually liberal in nature and want to do their bit to help others less fortunate than themselves.

Which is strange as churches are charity but they have overrun the republicans and suddenly they are anti-charity.

---

I remember Jeb Bush said Trump is not going to get the nomination. If Trump gets all the delegates necessary, is there any way Trump could be denied?

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

However, I do believe that most Americans are actually liberal in nature and want to do their bit to help others less fortunate than themselves.

Which is strange as churches are charity but they have overrun the republicans and suddenly they are anti-charity.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you rephrase it?

---

Reality Internet Personality

However, I do believe that most Americans are actually liberal in nature and want to do their bit to help others less fortunate than themselves.

Which is strange as churches are charity but they have overrun the republicans and suddenly they are anti-charity.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you rephrase it?

Simply wondering why all the religious types who belong to churches which do charity are in the political party that wants to end welfare, deny migrants, end abortion, etc.

---

Simply wondering why all the religious types who belong to churches which do charity are in the political party that wants to end welfare, deny migrants, end abortion, etc.

That's easy, Calvinistic self righteousness.

---

Recently, the RNC was going to change its Bylaws to make it harder for Trump.

That's what I was wondering... it's really going to get ugly if that happens.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Simply wondering why all the religious types who belong to churches which do charity are in the political party that wants to end welfare, deny migrants, end abortion, etc.

Do you REALLY want an answer to that??

Seriously, how is it that the answers are not bleeding obvious to anyone that has at least a passing familiarity with (at least I presume you are talking about Christians) Christian Biblical doctrine?

Sigh...

OK.... 'welfare'...

Genesis 3: 17 - 19 (KJV)

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

And

2 Thessalonians 3:10 (KJV)

10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

These verses form the core of the opposition to Charity.

There are other verses that support the opposite. Namely:

Matthew 25: 34 - 40 (KJV)

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

So, what do we have? A BAD case of Cognitive Dissonance, thats what.

As a wise person once wrote in a particular movie:

Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles (1974) wrote:

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." -- Jim

You can make a similar argument re: migrants.

Your third subject, abortion, however, has enough secular difficulties attached to it that perhaps it should not have been attached to your statement.

Case in point:

People v. Davis (1994) 7 C4th 797.

http://online.ceb.com/CalCases/C4/7C4t797.htm

OPINION

LUCAS, C. J.

Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a), provides that "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.) In this case, we consider and reject the argument that viability of a fetus is an element of fetal murder under the statute.

but yet:

United States Supreme Court decisions that have defined viability of a fetus in terms of "probabilities, not possibilities," when limiting a woman's absolute right to an abortion. (See Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113, 163 [35 L.Ed.2d 147, 182-183, 93 S.Ct. 705] [defining viability as that point in fetal development when a fetus, if born, would be capable of living normally outside the womb]; Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) __________ U.S. __________ [120 L.Ed.2d 674, 112 S.Ct. 2791] [reaffirming Roe's viability definition].)

In this case, the Cognitive Dissonance is not in some holy scripture somewhere but in the law itself.

In some circumstances, a fetus may be freely killed and in other circumstances that same fetus's death could result in a murder conviction.

All this said, I do believe that preachers can be as dangerous to freedom and liberty as politicians.

As a wise person once wrote in a particular movie:

Mel Brooks in Blazing Saddles (1974) wrote:

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." -- Jim

All this said, I do believe that preachers can be as dangerous to freedom and liberty as politicians.

I think preachers are more dangerous than politicians to freedom, but the most dangerous is the preacher/politician.

As to the last item, if it isn't alive, you can't kill it.

---

Interesting piece on Trump (and also Sanders).

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-not-idiot-he-could-be-next-us-president-1540654

...

"Come to look for America"; "Make America Great Again". See the similarity? Both these messages evoke nostalgia for a vision of an America that is being lost. The contrast is most stark with Marco Rubio's slogan "A new American century". Trump and Sanders advocate for a return to the old century, while Rubio anticipates the new. Trump argues that America is being stolen from its people by mass immigration – and, quasi-implicitly, the oligarchs in the political/financial classes who refuse to close its borders. Sanders argues that America is being stolen from its people by the oligarchs in the political/financial classes who defraud the people – and, quasi-implicitly, permit mass-immigration.

The major difference between Trump and Sanders is tone, but the messages are, on close inspection, not exactly dissimilar. Incidentally, this is why I think Sanders might just be a stronger candidate against Trump than Hillary Clinton, and furthermore Sanders is a quite masculine man who seems comfortable in his own skin – not the kind of man that Trump could easily emasculate in the way he has Jeb Bush.

Nostalgia is a powerful message at a time when American labour-force participation rates have declined dramatically since the turn of millennium, partly due to extensive Chinese competition and its medium-term negative effects on wages and employment. When the outcomes of the last two major wars, against Iraq and Afghanistan, remain unclear at best. When median income have been either flat or falling over the past decades (for all the imperfections of this measure). When, perhaps most crucially of all, growing diversity has destroyed the everyday social trust that used to define America's communities.

Nostalgia is a message that Donald Trump is to attempt to ride all the way to the White House, and it should not be thought implausible that he can do so. You don't have to squint too hard to think that for the ordinary American, especially the ordinary white American, a return to the past might be more attractive than an embrace of the future.

Fundamentally, the distinction between Trump and Sanders and the rest of the candidates is that Trump and Sanders are standing for the idea of America as a true "nation state" that places the welfare of its own citizens at the core of its identity. The others have, I believe, tacitly or openly accepted the idea of America as an extended global marketplace, a home of essentially unrestrained free-market economics with quasi-open borders.

A "market state" that places the opportunity of its own citizens at the core of its identity – and, in its fullest conception, aims to maximize the opportunities of all marketplace participants, even non-citizens.

The distinction between "nation state" and "market state" is explored most fully in Philip Bobbitt's superb books The Shield of Achilles and Terror and Consent, which I cannot recommend highly enough. The distinction between opportunity for the individual and welfare of the whole is key. Prioritising the welfare of the whole, in practice and theory, implies the limitation of the opportunity of the individual to live their life the way they want, and to make near-limitless wealth.

Evidently, both nation state and market state have their strengths and weaknesses. At this point I'll leave the debate to the American electorate, and make no serious comment here, other than to ask this question: why should anyone fight and die for a market when they can simply move to a new one?

The top 3 candidates getting the lion's share of the press at this time are Trump, Sanders, and Clinton.

This piece is a good Analysis of Trump and Sanders and lists some reasons why we might not want either one (and no, not the old crap of 'Trump is an idiot' or 'Sanders is a commie wanna-be'... REAL reasons).

Clinton is highly damaged goods. Scandal after scandal (You all DID notice that the Obama administration has finally acknowledged late last week that Clinton had Top Secret stuff on that illegal home email-server she was using?)... criminal action after criminal action... Not to mention her incompetence as SecState...

Who is left to support? Is it FINALLY time for the American people to ditch the two tired, old parties and pursue some others?