Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton

[sealybobo]

And this just further supports the original post....

Nearly half of American voters who support either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump for the White House said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday.

I personally think this speaks volumes. It clearly says that both sides agree they have nominated someone awful. I will largely defend the Democrats on this one - they only had three choices total (and two - Hillary and Bernie - are completely unelectable). Republicans have no excuses though. We had the best field in the history of the party, and even though liberals were showing up in droves to hijack the primary, if Republicans would have acted like true conservatives Trump wouldn't be the nominee.

What a sad statement about the U.S. The rest of the world must be laughing that both sides are only voting simply to block the other side, and not because they actually like their own candidate.

Exclusive: Top reason Americans will vote for Trump: 'To stop Clinton' - poll

This is just Republicans and the obviously NOT liberal media controlling the message. Its time we start talking about how great the Clinton years were and how bush turned bills surplus into a deficit. And how Obama fixed Bush's mess and fact is there's no difference between Cruz bush trump or kasich.

Stay the course.

 

[sealybobo]

And give the Senate back to the dems. Let Mitch filabust as the minority leader. Then we go nuclear

 

[HenryBHough]

Trump v. Clinton is fun to think about but it won't happen.

Trump v. Fauxahontas? Highly probable.
Trump v. Ketchup King? Not improbable.
Trump v. Plugs? Looking less probable.

Trump v. Nutty Old Uncle Bernie? Probable with Sanders as independent.

 

[OKTexas]

In 1997 Blair in the UK spoke about health and education etc. In the US no one cares.

Well, the only thing I would say about this is that we shouldn't be talking about healthcare and education during a presidential election. Neither of those are one of the 18 responsibilities of the federal government. Those issues should be discussed during elections for mayors, city council, state legislators, and governors. But I largely agree with everything else you said.

We are going to sink fast if we don't restore constitutional government.

The only Constitutional spending the Congress does is on the military!

Me thinks you need to read the Constitution again.

Actually I have, just making a point of what is clearly spelled out.

Other believe that their are implied spending versus actual constructional spending, like funding the military..

Except there are many things spelled out other than just the military, but I understand your point.

 

[P@triot]

And this just further supports the original post....

Nearly half of American voters who support either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump for the White House said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday.

I personally think this speaks volumes. It clearly says that both sides agree they have nominated someone awful. I will largely defend the Democrats on this one - they only had three choices total (and two - Hillary and Bernie - are completely unelectable). Republicans have no excuses though. We had the best field in the history of the party, and even though liberals were showing up in droves to hijack the primary, if Republicans would have acted like true conservatives Trump wouldn't be the nominee.

What a sad statement about the U.S. The rest of the world must be laughing that both sides are only voting simply to block the other side, and not because they actually like their own candidate.

Exclusive: Top reason Americans will vote for Trump: 'To stop Clinton' - poll

This is just Republicans and the obviously NOT liberal media controlling the message. Its time we start talking about how great the Clinton years were and how bush turned bills surplus into a deficit. And how Obama fixed Bush's mess and fact is there's no difference between Cruz bush trump or kasich.

Stay the course.

Even if that liberal propaganda were true - Bill's not running for office sweetheart. He's not eligible. Those fantasy "golden years" of Slick Willy are irrelevant.

Oh yeah....by the way....it was Ronald Reagan who built those years sweetie. Clinton destroyed them when he destroyed the housing market with his socialist 1997 Community Re-Investment Act.

 

[sealybobo]

And this just further supports the original post....

Nearly half of American voters who support either Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump for the White House said they will mainly be trying to block the other side from winning, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Thursday.

I personally think this speaks volumes. It clearly says that both sides agree they have nominated someone awful. I will largely defend the Democrats on this one - they only had three choices total (and two - Hillary and Bernie - are completely unelectable). Republicans have no excuses though. We had the best field in the history of the party, and even though liberals were showing up in droves to hijack the primary, if Republicans would have acted like true conservatives Trump wouldn't be the nominee.

What a sad statement about the U.S. The rest of the world must be laughing that both sides are only voting simply to block the other side, and not because they actually like their own candidate.

Exclusive: Top reason Americans will vote for Trump: 'To stop Clinton' - poll

This is just Republicans and the obviously NOT liberal media controlling the message. Its time we start talking about how great the Clinton years were and how bush turned bills surplus into a deficit. And how Obama fixed Bush's mess and fact is there's no difference between Cruz bush trump or kasich.

Stay the course.

Even if that liberal propaganda were true - Bill's not running for office sweetheart. He's not eligible. Those fantasy "golden years" of Slick Willy are irrelevant.

Oh yeah....by the way....it was Ronald Reagan who built those years sweetie. Clinton destroyed them when he destroyed the housing market with his socialist 1997 Community Re-Investment Act.

Lol.

Even if the con propaganda is true Ronnie's not running. He's dead. Those golden years are over.

And it was Reagan who started bringing in illegals and sending jobs overseas.

The Clinton's ran a good white house. That's why the cons hate them.

We can't go back to bushanomics. Trickle down doesn't work.

 

[Care4all]

Trump - put America first.

Hillary - put her interest groups first and America last.

Your choice...

Trump puts Trump FIRST....no one else ever in his entire life gets put first, but Trump himself.... he has a well documented history, that only shows Trump putting himself first...not America and NOT Americans, simply just himself.

That is CLEAR AS DAYLIGHT...

 

[Norman]

Trump - put America first.

Hillary - put her interest groups first and America last.

Your choice...

Trump puts Trump FIRST....no one else ever in his entire life gets put first, but Trump himself.... he has a well documented history, that only shows Trump putting himself first...not America and NOT Americans, simply just himself.

That is CLEAR AS DAYLIGHT...

Same can be said of Hillary... but after that, she puts her interest and Trump the America.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's not against the law. It's against the law for the federal government to be involved in education at all. The states run their education, they can choose to accept federal help or not.

Yes it is. They are restricted to 18 enumerated powers and education is not one of them. Thus they are violating the law when they involve themselves in education or when they take tax payer money from Florida and funnel it to Illinois. The people of Florida should not be paying for the education of Illinois youth. That is illegal.

The Constitution is rather vague, and the feds have managed to make the most of this vagueness.

The problem is with your argument is that the federal govt was given the legislative powers. Now, the constitution in article 1 section 8 says what powers Congress "shall have", section 9 states what Congress CANNOT do. And that is quite limited.

Now, this argument is rather controversial, and I'm not necessarily supporting such an argument.

What I do see, however, is the vagueness of such clauses as

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;"

What is the common welfare? Would not education come under common welfare? So, the US Congress can collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the USA.

 

[P@triot]

The problem is with your argument is that the federal govt was given the legislative powers.

That's not true at all. The legislative branch was given legislative powers. But it is the executive branch that is involving itself in education. Furthermore, even if Congress was to pass a law making it the business of the executive branch to involve itself in education, it still wouldn't matter. The only way that would be legal would be to amend the Constitution. Anything short of an amendment is irrelevant because the federal government is restricted to 18 enumerated powers and education is not one of them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem is with your argument is that the federal govt was given the legislative powers.

That's not true at all. The legislative branch was given legislative powers. But it is the executive branch that is involving itself in education. Furthermore, even if Congress was to pass a law making it the business of the executive branch to involve itself in education, it still wouldn't matter. The only way that would be legal would be to amend the Constitution. Anything short of an amendment is irrelevant because the federal government is restricted to 18 enumerated powers and education is not one of them.

Well, what limits are there on the executive dealing with education? The thing is that all money raised must go through Congress, and the power to raise taxes is through Congress, so... Congress could stop this at any time.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

P@triot 14419928

The only one I felt was worth a damn on any level was Mitt Romney.

The better man and president beat Mitt.

Mitt wanted four years to get the unemployment rate below 6%. Obama got there in two years.

ROMNEY: I cannot predict precisely what the rate would be at the end of one year. I can tell you that over a period of four years, by a virtue of the polices that we put in place, we get the unemployment rate down to 6 percent, perhaps a little lower.

Why is Romney so great in your opinion?

Romneycare?

 

[Dr Grump]

I will largely defend the Democrats on this one - they only had three choices total (and two - Hillary and Bernie - are completely unelectable). Republicans have no excuses though. We had the best field in the history of the party, and even though liberals were showing up in droves to hijack the primary, if Republicans would have acted like true conservatives Trump wouldn't be the nominee.

You are right and wrong.
1) Hillary is totally electable as is Bernie
2) The Repubs totally missed the boat on this one. You are right, there were a couple of great candidates in there. However, the fact they voted for Donald says a lot about the flotsam and jetsam that is a paid up member of the GoP. None of it good.

All the left has is insults and they are worried about Trump? The fact is he wouldn't be possible if people weren't sick of libtard bullshit.

As opposed to the bullshit of right. I thought the right were all about responsibility for their own actions. Trump is your boy. You own him.

 

[Iceweasel]

I will largely defend the Democrats on this one - they only had three choices total (and two - Hillary and Bernie - are completely unelectable). Republicans have no excuses though. We had the best field in the history of the party, and even though liberals were showing up in droves to hijack the primary, if Republicans would have acted like true conservatives Trump wouldn't be the nominee.

You are right and wrong.
1) Hillary is totally electable as is Bernie
2) The Repubs totally missed the boat on this one. You are right, there were a couple of great candidates in there. However, the fact they voted for Donald says a lot about the flotsam and jetsam that is a paid up member of the GoP. None of it good.

All the left has is insults and they are worried about Trump? The fact is he wouldn't be possible if people weren't sick of libtard bullshit.

As opposed to the bullshit of right. I thought the right were all about responsibility for their own actions. Trump is your boy. You own him.

You just proved my point, asshole.

 

[P@triot]

The problem is with your argument is that the federal govt was given the legislative powers.

That's not true at all. The legislative branch was given legislative powers. But it is the executive branch that is involving itself in education. Furthermore, even if Congress was to pass a law making it the business of the executive branch to involve itself in education, it still wouldn't matter. The only way that would be legal would be to amend the Constitution. Anything short of an amendment is irrelevant because the federal government is restricted to 18 enumerated powers and education is not one of them.

Well, what limits are there on the executive dealing with education? The thing is that all money raised must go through Congress, and the power to raise taxes is through Congress, so... Congress could stop this at any time.

In theory your right. And they should stop it. But there are too many liberals in the Republican Party. And even if they did, Obama was just veto it anyway. That was on thing I loved about Ron Paul. While I never would have voted for him based on his national security policies, his domestic policies were spot on. He would have gotten the federal government out of everything they have no business being in. I think his son Rand would give us the best of both world's.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem is with your argument is that the federal govt was given the legislative powers.

That's not true at all. The legislative branch was given legislative powers. But it is the executive branch that is involving itself in education. Furthermore, even if Congress was to pass a law making it the business of the executive branch to involve itself in education, it still wouldn't matter. The only way that would be legal would be to amend the Constitution. Anything short of an amendment is irrelevant because the federal government is restricted to 18 enumerated powers and education is not one of them.

Well, what limits are there on the executive dealing with education? The thing is that all money raised must go through Congress, and the power to raise taxes is through Congress, so... Congress could stop this at any time.

In theory your right. And they should stop it. But there are too many liberals in the Republican Party. And even if they did, Obama was just veto it anyway. That was on thing I loved about Ron Paul. While I never would have voted for him based on his national security policies, his domestic policies were spot on. He would have gotten the federal government out of everything they have no business being in. I think his son Rand would give us the best of both world's.

Well that's how government works. The govt does what it likes within the separation of powers, after that it's up to the voters, and the voters don't seem to care for your view, so it doesn't happen.

 

[P@triot]

P@triot 14419928

The only one I felt was worth a damn on any level was Mitt Romney.

The better man and president beat Mitt.

Mitt wanted four years to get the unemployment rate below 6%. Obama got there in two years.

ROMNEY: I cannot predict precisely what the rate would be at the end of one year. I can tell you that over a period of four years, by a virtue of the polices that we put in place, we get the unemployment rate down to 6 percent, perhaps a little lower.

Why is Romney so great in your opinion?

Romneycare?

First of all, I never said Romney was "great". So stop with the hyperbole. I said (and I quote) "the only one worth a damn". That's a far cry from "great". If you can't engage in a sincere debate, why engage in one at all? Don't intentionally misquote me.

Second, as far as "Romneycare" - yes - I was extremely impressed with it. Not that I personally would want it for my state, but I appreciated that Romney could operate in a liberal state and reach across the aisle to work with Democrats and all of his constituents. But far more importantly than that, Romneycare was 100% legal and Constitutional (unlike Obamacare). Liberals could have just about everything and anything they want at the state level. The reason they spend so much time throwing themselves on the ground and pitching a tantrum over conservatives opposing them is because they try to illegally achieve everything at the federal level. Romneycare was apparently the right solution for Massachusetts. Mitt didn't attempt to push it on the other 49 states. That's the entire point of American and the U.S. Constitution. 50 individual states deciding for themselves what's right for their state - independent of the other 49.

But nothing was more impressive than Romney's illustrating how he had his finger on the pulse of global geopolitical matters. Without having the daily PDB and endless national security meetings and alerts, Romney came into the debates and just bent Obama over. History has now proven unequivocally that he was spot on with his assessment of the threats posed by Russia, ISIS, etc. It has also proven how clueless Obama was with all of that.

Lastly, he came across as extremely articulate and appeared to be a man of integrity with no skeletons in his closet. There was nobody come out of the shadows accusing him of extramarital affairs, of accepting bribes, etc. Certainly no stories of many people mysteriously dying around him like the Clintons. No history of being mentored by card carrying members of Communist Party U.S.A. or studying marxism like the Obamas.

 

[P@triot]

The problem is with your argument is that the federal govt was given the legislative powers.

That's not true at all. The legislative branch was given legislative powers. But it is the executive branch that is involving itself in education. Furthermore, even if Congress was to pass a law making it the business of the executive branch to involve itself in education, it still wouldn't matter. The only way that would be legal would be to amend the Constitution. Anything short of an amendment is irrelevant because the federal government is restricted to 18 enumerated powers and education is not one of them.

Well, what limits are there on the executive dealing with education? The thing is that all money raised must go through Congress, and the power to raise taxes is through Congress, so... Congress could stop this at any time.

In theory your right. And they should stop it. But there are too many liberals in the Republican Party. And even if they did, Obama was just veto it anyway. That was on thing I loved about Ron Paul. While I never would have voted for him based on his national security policies, his domestic policies were spot on. He would have gotten the federal government out of everything they have no business being in. I think his son Rand would give us the best of both world's.

Well that's how government works. The govt does what it likes within the separation of powers, after that it's up to the voters, and the voters don't seem to care for your view, so it doesn't happen.

Again...not true at all. That's not how "government works". The U.S. Constitution dictates how government works and it is the law. Every time it's violated, the people doing it are violating the law. Jimmy Carter violated the law when he created the Department of Education out of thin air. And even if Congress had created it, it would still be illegal since it is not permitted by the U.S. Constitution. You want it? Jimmy Carter wants it? Then amend the Constitution. That's the law. That is how "it works".

Basically, what you and all of your pals on the left are saying is "we can't get the votes to legally get what we want so we will just break the law achieve everything illegally". Not acceptable. Sorry. And only an unethical sleaze bag would find it acceptable.

 

[P@triot]

The only one I felt was worth a damn on any level was Mitt Romney.

The better man and president beat Mitt.

Cute story....but Romney exposed Obama for the ideology fool that he is on the national stage. Obama was a clueless buffoon on stage and everyone was laughing at him. Obama won because he engaged in mass voter fraud. You know it. I know it. The Obama's know it. Hell, people in Russia know it (and are thankful since Obama is weak and was too stupid to see Russia coming).

Obama instructed the IRS to suppress conservative groups and that has been proven. Why the need to engage in such illegal, unethical, and deplorable behavior if one is "the better man"? Obama put out a false unemployment report before the November election and that has been proven. Why the need to engage in such illegal, unethical, and deplorable behavior if one is "the better man"? And of course, liberals all across the nation engaged in their standard voter fraud on election day:

Rachel Alexander - Obama Likely Won Re-Election Through Election Fraud

THE BIG LIST of vote fraud reports

 

[P@triot]

The only one I felt was worth a damn on any level was Mitt Romney.

Mitt wanted four years to get the unemployment rate below 6%. Obama got there in two years.

Bwahahahahahhahahahha!

Junior....Obama has spent 8 years and nearly $10 trillion in reckless deficit spending and he still hasn't gotten the unemployment down below 6%. Hell, he hasn't even come close to getting it down below 8%. You really need to stop worshipping the guy and start questioning and researching.

There are record numbers of people who left the labor force during the Obama reign of terror. He's destroyed the economy to the point where the people have simply given up. And what is his response to that? Does he reverse his failed marxist policies to reverse the course of failure? Nope. Instead, he dances an Irish jig and lowers the unemployment rate because people who give up looking for a job don't technically count. This servers two purposes for Obama. To dupe minions such as yourself into believing he's doing some amazing job and firmly places more people in the government plantation - where they are beholden to government for their most basic needs (and thus will be much more likely to vote Dumbocrat, keeping him and his pals in power and in money). Obama's true unemployment numbers have far exceeded 10% for his entire reign of terror.

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

BLS: Americans Not in the Labor Force Soar to Record 94.7 Million

Americans Not In The Labor Force Soar To Record 94.7 Million, Surge By 664,000 In One Month | Zero Hedge

Record 94,708,000 Americans NOT in Labor Force - Breitbart

94,708,000: Record Number of Americans Not in Labor Force

Unemployment Report Reverts as Half a Million Drop Out of Labor Force...Again | The Economic Populist

US hiring grinds to a near-halt; many stop looking for work