The "equivalency" is:
Both will spend money we don't have on things we can't afford.
Both will trample on different parts of our Bill of Rights.
Both will impact our economy in a different negative way.
Both intend to use executive order to create law rather than legislation.

Binary flip flop. Too bad there isn't a way to extract useful work for the posts.

And yes the applause was for Trump. His wool has been pulled down very well on Americans educated in public schools.

---

Binary flip flop. Too bad there isn't a way to extract useful work for the posts.

And yes the applause was for Trump. His wool has been pulled down very well on Americans educated in public schools.

No one here has said the applause wasn't for Trump, but as you point out, it doesn't mean they were right to do so.

---

Reality Internet Personality

... To claim there is a dangerous pandering.

Es99...

True to form. Welcome back. I missed you.

Excuse my typos. I am using a tablet.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Johnson responds to last nights debate:

We have fallen through the looking glass. Thanks to two candidates who are each running on a platform of not being the other, we are in historically uninspiring territory.
Yes, thanks to some great questions from the audience, there were a few brief discussions of issues. I even heard some things from each of them with which I agreed. But the bigger question hanging over the entire debate is whether either of these candidates can be believed. We heard predictable answers, incessant attacks and, sadly, no indications of leadership. Without any confidence that a President will have the integrity, character and principles to actually put the nation first, the rehearsed sound bites don’t mean very much.
Americans deserve better. They deserve candidates who are not embarrassments, who aren’t interested in pitting Americans against one another, and who have actually proven that they can lead with principle, nonpartisanship, and a singular purpose of giving Americans the opportunity to improve their lives, be safe, and be free.
Gary Johnson

...

You could tell he was holding back in the first few minutes of the debate. As soon as he was attacked, he counter-punched. Don't attack him and he won't counter-punch. Haven't you tax and spend liberals learned this?

....

Ahhhh, the old "she started it" defence. Just the sort of level headed maturity you want in your commander in chief.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Trump: No, Hillary. YOU owe him the apology! (paraphrase) It was YOUR campaign that came up with that one during your 2008 campaign against him!

That's another one of those things Trump said that has been proven time and time again to be a lie. It's not funny, it's scary that he is using Nazi propaganda tools by repeating something known to be an absolute lie again and again until people believe it.

Uhh... That turns out to not be the case. Of the two people that started the 'birther' schizz in late 2007.... Both were part of the 2008 Clinton campaign. An unknown Clinton staffer from Iowa, who reportedly got fired according to the Clinton Campaign manager... And Sidney Blumenthal, senior advisor to the Clinton Campaign, long-time confidant of Hillary Clinton, and former aide to President Bill Clinton.

Then, of course, Rush 'Stinky Cheese' Limbaugh and the rest of the right-wing shock-jocks picked it up and ran with it.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Trump: No, Hillary. YOU owe him the apology! (paraphrase) It was YOUR campaign that came up with that one during your 2008 campaign against him!

That's another one of those things Trump said that has been proven time and time again to be a lie. It's not funny, it's scary that he is using Nazi propaganda tools by repeating something known to be an absolute lie again and again until people believe it.

Uhh... That turns out to not be the case. Of the two people that started the 'birther' schizz in late 2007.... Both were part of the 2008 Clinton campaign. An unknown Clinton staffer from Iowa, who reportedly got fired according to the Clinton Campaign manager... And Sidney Blumenthal, senior advisor to the Clinton Campaign, long-time confidant of Hillary Clinton, and former aide to President Bill Clinton.

Then, of course, Rush 'Stinky Cheese' Limbaugh and the rest of the right-wing shock-jocks picked it up and ran with it.

That 'unknown Clinton staffer' was according to reports, Judy Rose. And the email she wrote did bring up the Kenyan ancestry and Muslim faith of Obama's father, but it also finished "Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii." That part was deleted by the Birthers.

---

Trump: No, Hillary. YOU owe him the apology! (paraphrase) It was YOUR campaign that came up with that one during your 2008 campaign against him!

That's another one of those things Trump said that has been proven time and time again to be a lie. It's not funny, it's scary that he is using Nazi propaganda tools by repeating something known to be an absolute lie again and again until people believe it.

Uhh... That turns out to not be the case. Of the two people that started the 'birther' schizz in late 2007.... Both were part of the 2008 Clinton campaign. An unknown Clinton staffer from Iowa, who reportedly got fired according to the Clinton Campaign manager... And Sidney Blumenthal, senior advisor to the Clinton Campaign, long-time confidant of Hillary Clinton, and former aide to President Bill Clinton.

Then, of course, Rush 'Stinky Cheese' Limbaugh and the rest of the right-wing shock-jocks picked it up and ran with it.

That 'unknown Clinton staffer' was according to reports, Judy Rose. And the email she wrote did bring up the Kenyan ancestry and Muslim faith of Obama's father, but it also finished "Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii." That part was deleted by the Birthers.

And spread around as a filthy lie. When that didn't work they claimed it was invented by Clinton, just another filthy lie. They aren't qualified in anything but filthy lies, so it is all they can do. Deplorable.

---

I guess I am unable to follow circular arguements.

Once something has been proven or disproved, then you can't go back to the begining as if nothing had been said. It's frustrating to keep working around that in a discussion.
......
Nobody should be called sexist for no reason.
Nobody should be called Nazi without damn good reasons.
......
Nobody is perfect or even close. To ignore the flaws of a person is to do a great disservice to a discussion about that person.
Pretending obviouis flaws don't exist make it impossible to communicate honestly.

I wish I could find a friendly place to chat and discuss without word twisters and people that take offence at every phrase.

oh well.

Trump: No, Hillary. YOU owe him the apology! (paraphrase) It was YOUR campaign that came up with that one during your 2008 campaign against him!

That's another one of those things Trump said that has been proven time and time again to be a lie. It's not funny, it's scary that he is using Nazi propaganda tools by repeating something known to be an absolute lie again and again until people believe it.

Uhh... That turns out to not be the case. Of the two people that started the 'birther' schizz in late 2007.... Both were part of the 2008 Clinton campaign. An unknown Clinton staffer from Iowa, who reportedly got fired according to the Clinton Campaign manager... And Sidney Blumenthal, senior advisor to the Clinton Campaign, long-time confidant of Hillary Clinton, and former aide to President Bill Clinton.

Then, of course, Rush 'Stinky Cheese' Limbaugh and the rest of the right-wing shock-jocks picked it up and ran with it.

That 'unknown Clinton staffer' was according to reports, Judy Rose. And the email she wrote did bring up the Kenyan ancestry and Muslim faith of Obama's father, but it also finished "Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii." That part was deleted by the Birthers.

But that still leaves the role of Sidney Blumenthal in the mess, who went to a Washington D.C. news media outlet with the story.... Of course, that news media outlet investigated, and found the story to be false... But, the damage had been done. Obama was hounded for years over it until he finally released a document proving he was born in the USA. Sad that he didn't immediately release it, it would have done a lot to short-circuit the 'birther' stuff. Personally, I believe it would be best if *ALL* candidates for President had to release documentation proving their eligibility as part of the process of filing to be a candidate.

Remember, it is the job of investigative journalism to pursue truth, not to whitewash things in support of a particular candidate. Marvin Zindler, we need you now more than ever!

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Personally, I believe it would be best if *ALL* candidates for President had to release documentation proving their eligibility as part of the process of filing to be a candidate.

There is only one federal election for President, and there is no registration of candidates for the election the electoral college conducts. The only body that could examine the documentation is the Congress. Congress doesn't even know who is running until they receive the votes of the electoral college.

I'm a bit stunned you are arguing for more Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), interference in the election process by having presumably state officials examine documents issued by another state for validity.

You do remember that the state does not elect a person running for president, the state election is to elect persons to vote in the electoral college and they are the names to be registered. Or are you arguing for the direct election of the president?

---

<ed time closed>Thought you were all for the constitution as written. Didn't think you wanted to mess with it and interpret it to have some new additional clause to require each state to examine another state's birth certificate to see if they are valid for the Federal purpose of eligibility. Can you even begin to think of all the welfare ways that some rouge state could use that to impose on another? A citizen of your state is in my state requesting assistance, here is the welfare bill, pay up!

Or do you want Congress to impose some duty on states to insist they do another action, under the commerce clause, of examining birth certificates of persons who are not residents of that state?

Obviously you are only for the constitution as written when it suits your particular political aims.

---

For comparison; WA will only except notary embossed birth certificates in from state or out.

Proof of citizenship, identity, and residence: EDL/EID

When you apply for a Washington enhanced driver license (EDL) or enhanced ID card (EID):

Show us all of the following documents:
•Proof of United States citizenship
•Proof of identity
•Proof of Washington State residence
•If applicable, Proof of name change

http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/edlproof.html

Any other driver's license from WA and you can not get on airline flight.

So to some degree WA is.

---

...

But you need a birth certificate in Louisiana Louisiana puts up hurdles to keep immigrants from getting married

---

The electoral college only decides the vote by a total of 270 or more which is gained for each individual state win.
Presidential candidates must meet constitutional requirements to win if the automatic 270 number is attained.
To run for president, the candidate must meet requirements in each state to be on the ballot.
Remember, if the no candidate has 270 electoral college votes at the end of the popular vote, then the House of Representatves will decide the election. To be considered eligible for consideration by the House of Representatives, a candidate need only have one electoral college vote.

Think about it.

<ed time closed>Thought you were all for the constitution as written. Didn't think you wanted to mess with it and interpret it to have some new additional clause to require each state to examine another state's birth certificate to see if they are valid for the Federal purpose of eligibility. Can you even begin to think of all the welfare ways that some rouge state could use that to impose on another? A citizen of your state is in my state requesting assistance, here is the welfare bill, pay up!

Or do you want Congress to impose some duty on states to insist they do another action, under the commerce clause, of examining birth certificates of persons who are not residents of that state?

Obviously you are only for the constitution as written when it suits your particular political aims.

LOL

The filing process is a matter for the STATE governments.

Existing Federal Law requires one state to accept another's documents (such as birth certificates) as valid... Reciprocity laws.

Simple. U.S. Constitutional Amendment requiring all states to require verification of eligibility before someone gets placed on their ballot for President (or their State Legislature decides to give their State's electoral votes to them without a popular vote, as is their right under the U.S. Constitution).

And 'rouge' (red) state?!?!? ROFL.

And I AM only for the US Constitution as written when it suits me. The REST of the time I am for dissolution of the Union. Those are the only two choices...

1. Strict Construction and total States' Rights...
or
2. The several States go their separate ways.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Johnny, you have it wrong. Just because someones name is on the ballot, that isn't who you are voting for. Your vote is for a slate of people. They are the ones who have to be qualified. (Who checks if the electors are actually residents of the state they are casting their ballot for? Legal age? etc.)

There was a time not so long ago when several states did not place the party nominee's name on the ballot, just the names of the electors. Voters had to have some minimum IQ to cast their ballots then.

Re Washington State: That mess is WA doing the unconstitutional bidding of congress which passed the real ID law. As MK points out to have each state verify if a candidate can hold federal office requires a constitutional amendment, so does having each state verify as the real ID act says.

In case some of you are wondering, that WA example sets up the condition where one state will not accept another state's ID, or not give it the full faith as the constitution requires.

Once you begin to mess with the founders perfection, you introduce lots of unnecessary complexity or loopholes.

---