A 'no vote' is a vote for the 'other guy'?

[Chloe]

I won't argue that every Republican who refuses to vote for Trump makes it easier to elect Hillary, simply by creating a situation where she requires one fewer vote to gain an overall majority (I know it's not quite that simple with the Electoral College and all that, but if you live in a state that might go either way it could matter if it's that close).

To look at it from the start of the primaries though...everyone who voted Trump - were they not making it impossible to vote for him come the fall? Shouldn't they have thought about what the prospects of a Hillary Presidency would mean before nominating someone like Trump?

That said it's a pretty lame situation if either party believes they can put forward as undesirable a candidate as they choose and their registered voters are somehow obliged to vote for someone they just can't back with a clear conscience. It's sad that both major parties have put forward candidates who are so very divisive. I rather get the impression there are many voters on both sides who struggle with the candidate their team has thrust upon them, and probably many voters on both sides who will vote for their side's candidate for no reason other than to keep The Other Guy out.

Very much so - UKIP tried their level best in the London Mayoral Race to "force" people to vote their candidate...but on principle I could not. Did I vote for the Tories? Nope...but apparently they want to explain to the world that it was a vote for Khan as Mayor. Go figure.

 

[Chloe]

It's like they say in virtually every election -- NOBODY ever finds a candidate that they agree 100% with. If you can find someone that supports 70-80% of our issues, that's probably as good as you're ever going to find it. To refuse to vote for someone because their thinking is not 100% allgned with our own is pretty foolish.

Are you making more of a case of what conservatives have in common with Hillary and ergo should vote for her, or liberals have in common with Trump? My husband saw nothing he differed with George Bush (43) on - backed him all the way and that would be a vote for someone. I won't vote for someone unless I feel comfortable doing so - that is 100% of my own comfort in doing so - what place do you have telling people to vote for someone even if they are not 100% comfortable with it?

Regarding the "derisive" candidates, it is a matter of perception -- which usually is something created by the leftist mass media.

The same ones who sucked all the oxygen out of the room and gave Trump the space to win the nomination? They were the ones who labelled him as derisive were they? The ones who used him, and the yahoo's who voted for him, then dumped him...that same media?

Hillary certainly IS derisive because of her criminal background and the horrific performance she gave as secretary of state and everything else she has done. Even most Dems (most of who will vote for her anyway -- if they show up at the polls) do not like her and there is a pretty good number of them who are switching to Trump.

Which is why they are one and the same - they should have run on the same ticket. Hillary is worse than derisive btw.

Her record, itself, disqualifies her from even running for president.

That was what Rubio said. Oh, yeah, wait...he also said that Trump was and is the biggest con man ever to run for President. He was, and is, still right on both counts.

But there she is, with the coddling press, getting the nomination after performing in the same manner that makes her so derisive in the first place -- rigging the system so that she automatically got the nomination over Sanders.

There we go - the complaining has started. Btw is that the same press that built Trump up in the first place...the ones that just won't give him the attention he seeks anymore?

As for Trump, he speaks loudly and boldly. And, based mostly on that, the mass media has portrayed him as some sort of monster. But, getting back to the percentage of issues that a candidate might agree with us on, look at the points he is running on....

The media built him up first - and like the good little attention seeker that he is, he lapped it up, because he was never going to get any better. Then they turned on him. He seems to have gotten rather upset and sulked at what he now calls, "the corrupt media". Awww diddums - guess he is a tad butt sore. He got used, so did his fans, and he deserved it.

He is for stopping illegal immigration, which is ruining our economy, increasing our drug problem, paving the way for terrorists to sneak through, etc.

Name me a terrorist that has "snuck through" because of illegal immigration? That has attacked the US...btw it is all a pipe dream. He is never going to do anything to curb it - it is one large fantasy. He has already started to backpedal on it which is what I told conservative after conservative - thankfully most of them that I told, listened to me. Now look at what he has done in the last day alone.

He is for supporting our veterans with proper health care through the VA.

According to who?

All he has ever done is to stuff veterans:

http://time.com/4286473/donald-trump-veterans-charity/

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2016/04/22/donald-trump-charity-veterans-scam/

That last article is by Red state btw - case you feel a need to blame the liberal media again. (Interest of full disclosure, the guy who runs it is a friend of the founder of mine / Mark's site).

He is for nominating solid, conservative supreme court justices who will act based on the intentions of our constitution, he is for bringing jobs back to the USA and creating a much stronger economy for the nation.

He ends up losing the Senate (because of the down ticket effect) you think he is going to get a conservative confirmed? He won't even bother trying, he will just go for a stealth choice. As for the economy and jobs, this is classic socialism 101. Blue Collar, unionized, high paying manufacturing jobs - it is as much a talking point as "infrastructure spending". Sanders is in favor of it, as is Trump...

He is in favor of a massive rebuild of our military, which Hillary & Obama have virtually dismantled, etc.

No he is not - he even claimed that he would cap NATO spending. Not because of asking others to step up, but he is going to gut the military or cap it. (Between insulting veterans, like McCain for example).

I could go on & on. But I hope you already get my point. There is very little that Trump is running on that would not be highly supported by most sober, patriotic American voters.

Ummm...if supporting banning Muslims (then lying about it), claiming the Kahn family have a subservient matriarch head it up, and that carpet bombing cities in the middle East is "patriotic", never ever will I see myself as someone who loves the flag. All of what he says is disputable, he is a born again liar and he has taken advantage of poor white people, claiming them to be oppressed by illegal immigrants and festered into their anxieties. He does nothing to help them, at all.

And anyone, who actually does support those values, and refuses to vote for Trump simply because he is loud and bold -- is directly responsible for helping elect a socialist/communist loving candidate who OPPOSES all of those values.

I am not sure you understand the definition of the word communist ; but you hit the nail on the head. Nobody who is a conservative and believes in the free market / a strong defense could support Trump. A real conservative would believe in free trade, opposition to abortion, no socialized healthcare like he and Hillary want. If you are a conservative you simply cant vote for this con man. There is one guy who wants to close off borders, bring jobs back, pay more to unionized employees, supported universal healthcare and wants to nationalize industries. He even went "neutral" on Israel...a socialist is one thing, but we all know what happens when you nationalize it, on top of that....

In reality, the differences between two candidates for POTUS have probably never been more striking and well defined in our nation's history.

The total opposite - these 2 should have been doing more than just attending the same wedding - they should have been running on the same ticket...

 

[Chloe]

My stance is that of the traditional American values that the country was founded on. As such, it is not a matter of "right thinking people agree with me." The values are there and either a person supports them or they do not. I do support them. Anyone thinking otherwise is not disagreeing with me as much as they are disagreeing with those values.

Alright, I'll bite - what are those values? What in those valued, does Trump share anything with you?

Those people are likely to vote for Hillary because they, as does she and Obama, hate the principles that the nation was founded on and want to reverse that founding into a new one in their own image: socialism, complete government control, very limited rights to free speech, a disarmed population, open borders, millions of refugees that have terrorists hiding among them, an abortion in every womb, etc., etc.

On the latter need I remind you:

Hates it, believes in "choice"...even worse than those who know no better. He knows that it is wrong but is okay with it none the less. As for free speech - care to show me where she (Hillary) has clamped down on free speech? He hates immigrants, we get it. He will be able to do nothing about it - I said he would flip flop but mainly because he could do nothing else. Now, he is just being two faced. He said one thing in Mexico yesterday, said the total opposite last night.

As I said, the difference between the philosophies of these two candidates cannot be more striking. Trump is for moral, traditional, constitutional American values. Hillary opposes those values.

You think Trump is moral and traditional? Divorcing your wife and then importing in a model from Russia is "moral"? Then...the imagery he has of his wife / she part takes in - that is a traditional value? Also ummm...Hillary opposes those values, does she? See this is the one part of their wedding rituals that makes sense, one philanderer inviting another couple of deviants to their wedding. Hillary doesn't oppose that at all - she enables it. She "stood by her man"...Trump is just trading the wife in, for newer models every time. Moral and traditional eh? At least Hillary didn't end her marriage - she comes off as the more Christian, she forgave her husband and made her marriage work.

Either each voter understands these differences or they do not.

No offense but I think I know which category you fall into....

But, in either case, the differences ARE very real -- and the future of the USA hangs in the balance.

There is nothing different at all between them - they are two peas in the same pod...

 

[Highlander]

Alright, I'll bite - what are those values? What in those valued, does Trump share anything with you?
On the latter need I remind you:

Hates it, believes in "choice"...even worse than those who know no better. He knows that it is wrong but is okay with it none the less. As for free speech - care to show me where she (Hillary) has clamped down on free speech? He hates immigrants, we get it. He will be able to do nothing about it - I said he would flip flop but mainly because he could do nothing else. Now, he is just being two faced. He said one thing in Mexico yesterday, said the total opposite last night.

You should realize that maturity is often the difference between a liberal and a conservative -- often within the same individual. That is why so many young people start out with a liberal mindset. Most of them eventually outgrow this malady and mature into decent, conservative people. Your clip about Trump believing in "choice" is a good example. Over the past few years, Trump has come to recognize the murderous act that abortion really is all about. Even Ronald Reagan was anti-life (pro abortion) when he was younger.

There is an old saying about liberals: "They say if you are 18 and don't want to feed the world, you have no heart. They also say that if you are 40 and still think you CAN feed the world, you have no head." To return your own phrase back to you, "No offense but I think I know which category you fall into...."

You think Trump is moral and traditional? Divorcing your wife and then importing in a model from Russia is "moral"? Then...the imagery he has of his wife / she part takes in - that is a traditional value? Also ummm...Hillary opposes those values, does she? See this is the one part of their wedding rituals that makes sense, one philanderer inviting another couple of deviants to their wedding. Hillary doesn't oppose that at all - she enables it. She "stood by her man"...Trump is just trading the wife in, for newer models every time. Moral and traditional eh? At least Hillary didn't end her marriage - she comes off as the more Christian, she forgave her husband and made her marriage work.

As Jesus said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Nobody is perfect and I will not defend Trump for being married several times. But he is not running on a platform based on marriage & divorce, is he? As for Hillary standing by her man, that is the most comical thing I've heard all year. EVERYONE knows that she stood behind her husband's coattails because theirs is a marriage based on power, not love. She has allegedly chased after as many women as he has (assuming you know about what Washington insiders privately say about her). Without him as her husband, Hillary would not have had a chance of running for her life's dream -- inhabitation of the oval office. Even you should realize that ANY woman worth the pride she should have would have tossed Willy out on his [staff edit] decades ago for his acts of adultery, rape and countless other sexual escapades.

No offense but I think I know which category you fall into....

Thinking you know something -- and ACTUALLY knowing something -- are two different things, as we have demonstrated here.

There is nothing different at all between them - they are two peas in the same pod...

The platforms of their campaigns -- and the platforms of their individual parties -- are what we are discussing here. And the difference between the Democrat Hillary -- and the Republican Trump -- are as far apart as Slick Willy from his trousers when he's alone with a bimbo. The only way they are "two peas in the same pod" is if you define "pod" as the planet that we all share.

 

[psalms 91]

He is mentally unstable.

 

[tango]

Sadly enough, for certain elections you could vote (like European ones) if you were not a UK citizen. EU Citizen would suffice. Not for Parliamentary elections. Irrelevant now I suppose after the referendum vote.

It's a bit curious trying to figure out who is allowed to vote in UK elections. Sometimes it seems like most of the manoeuvering is more about rigging the results than actually representing the people.

Even in the UK an awful lot of people had an issue with EU citizens voting in UK elections - even though they paid taxes to the Treasury.

It seems to me that if you pay taxes you should get to vote, and if you don't pay taxes you shouldn't get to vote. It's silly that someone who never worked a day in their life and never plans to work a day in their life gets to vote because of an accident of birth, while someone else who jumped through all the hoops to move to the country and who works and pays taxes doesn't get a vote.

:blink:

Really? It is still only "saying" it, but he is threatening to carpet bomb towns, ban entire religions of people, all the while, denigrating dead servicemen and their families and claiming everything to be "a joke" when it doesn't work. that is just in the last month.

Don't think for a minute that I like Trump, I just like him more than Hillary. I'd vote for him over Hillary in the same way I'd rather have a broken leg than a cardiac arrest. I've said a few times in assorted threads that I think it's pretty lame that a country of over 300,000,000 people couldn't find candidates more inspiring than these two.

The only reason that he has never jeopardized national security is because he is a carnival barker who has never held office. If he had, he would have just about left the free world a nuked mess - somehow by accident knowing him. Then claimed that it was a joke. Kelly Ann Conway seems to be forcing him to straighten up ; but only because he is saying what he needs to, to win. Think if the roles were reversed. If Hillary just "talked" and Trump had been SoS...then what? She would have been two-faced, smarmy and nasty ; he would have destroyed half the world over but her supporters would be saying "look she just talks a bad game, she has poor judgement but she has never risked national security like Trump has!" It is only because of the fact that he has never been in a position to do so.

Or to put it another way: how could he have risked national security in the first place from the high and lofty position...of being a reality TV host??

Whether he could have risked national security or not isn't really the issue. The alternative is someone who is known to have risked national security.

As far as I can see, if you were to take everything that is wrong with politics in Washington and condense it all into one person, that person would be Hillary Clinton. A vote for her is a vote for more of the same. A vote for Trump is arguably rather like a vote for Brexit, the idea that we don't know what the alternative would look like but we'd rather take the chance on the unknown than simply plod along with endlessly more of the same.

 

[Chloe]

Being conservative and all they had to go with a crazy candidate

I don't think that any actual conservative voted for him - I don't see how you can be a conservative yet vote for Trump, the two are just not compatible leave alone synonymous with anything. Trump is not a conservative at all. If someone who is a conservative voted for him in the primaries they are just lying to themselves at this point. I can understand that in a general they have no other choice than running up against a brick wall (best term for Hillary I have had yet) but if they were to have vote for him against 16 other right leaning candidates, then conservatism is certainly not what they were going for at the time.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't think that any actual conservative voted for him - I don't see how you can be a conservative yet vote for Trump, the two are just not compatible leave alone synonymous with anything. Trump is not a conservative at all. If someone who is a conservative voted for him in the primaries they are just lying to themselves at this point. I can understand that in a general they have no other choice than running up against a brick wall (best term for Hillary I have had yet) but if they were to have vote for him against 16 other right leaning candidates, then conservatism is certainly not what they were going for at the time.

The aside for voting for a candidate that cannot win the only choice for conservatives is to vote Clinton. What an irony.

 

[Chloe]

Interesting that you would consider a man dangerous when he will build our military, secure our borders, protect our 2nd amendment, remove violent illegal aliens, etc. And equally interesting that you would support his opponent, who is anti 2nd amendment, helped create ISIS, wants completely open borders, wants to explode the number of unvetted foreigners coming into our country.

I guess we have different concepts of what is protective and what is dangerous.

He said more immediate danger to us. He is not denying what dangers Hillary possesses / has (and I don't mean to speak for him) but he said said that they are greater quantified with Trump, on a more expedited scale.

 

[Chloe]

The founding principles that human beings deserve to live free, can worship whatever religion they choose, should own their own property, etc., "One Nation Under God," are timeless principles. And they do indeed make the country great in today's times. It is the growing absence of these principles -- thanks to the Dems -- that has the country floundering so badly in today's times.

Right - given that it is the Dems who are running a candidate who is the total antithesis of that, right?

No, oh yeah let's wait a minute and see. It is Trump who wants to ban an entire religion of people entering the US, isn't it? Religious freedom? Sure - not with Trump though.

Property rights? Remind me again who used Eminent Domain to kick an old lady out of her house to build his casino again?

Yeah, is is all the fault of the Democrats, right?

*Rolls eyes*

As Margaret Thatcher once said, "Socialism works great -- until you run out of other people's money." Many socialist nations have very little overhead -- compared to the USA -- in that many do not have huge military budgets because other nations, such as the USA, provide protection for them. And, even in these nations, the economy is bad or the nationalist healthcare system is a disaster, etc.

The most nationalized / socialized healthcare system in the world is in the UK. You know what Margret Thatcher had to say on it:

In the 1980s, Thatcherism represented a systematic, decisive rejection and reversal of the Post-war consensus, whereby the major political parties largely agreed on the central themes of Keynesianism, the welfare state, nationalized industry, public housing and close regulation of the economy. There was one major exception: the National Health Service, which was widely popular and had wide support inside the Conservative Party. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher promised Britons in 1982, the NHS is "safe in our hands."[16]

In the 1980s modern management processes (General Management) were introduced in the NHS to replace the previous system of consensus management. This was outlined in the Griffiths Report of 1983.[17] This recommended the appointment of general managers in the NHS with whom responsibility should lie. The report also recommended that clinicians be better involved in management. Financial pressures continued to place strain on the NHS. In 1987, an additional £101 million was provided by the government to the NHS. In 1988 the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, announced a review of the NHS. From this review and in 1989, two white papers Working for Patients and Caring for People were produced. These outlined the introduction of what was termed the "internal market", which was to shape the structure and organization of health services for most of the next decade. In spite of intensive opposition from the BMA, who wanted a pilot study or the reforms in one region, the internal market was introduced.

In 1990, the National Health Service & Community Care Act (in England) defined this "internal market", whereby Health Authorities ceased to run hospitals but "purchased" care from their own or other authorities' hospitals. Certain GPs became "fund holders" and were able to purchase care for their patients. The "providers" became NHS trusts, which encouraged competition but also increased local differences.

The Tories in the UK are obsessed with nationalized healthcare...like Trump being in favor of an individual mandate.

In regards to US protection of socialist states, when was the last time the US did anything to protect / offer support to somewhere like Venezuela? Or the old USSR? Last I checked the Bastian of freedom himself (Reagan) ended a 50 year old cold war by beating Gorbachev with the help of Thatcher and Bush and beat socialist policies round the East. Vietnam now trades with the US and is a huge partner after the most horrific war since WWII, a free market principle. Trade...something Trump is opposed to. Someone who wants to renegotiate FTA's. Last I checked, it was Bush (43) and his administration who led a coup against Chavez before he died, in 2003. I am not sure where you get the idea that these socialist states get US protection. Look at Trump's comments on NATO - he thinks nations in Scandinavia do not pay enough and need to give more to the running of NATO. Scotland, another socialist state - the US ran against Sturgeon's independence campaign a few years back and has never offered anything to protect it, ever. Refuses to recognize it, as an independent state.

Thanks for the math. But if a scheming president were to appoint socialists who are only in their 30s, they could very well go into their 80s, or longer, on the bench. And, as the socialist ball continues rolling through the years, additional young leftists can be appointed to replace them. The growing tide of socialism may be far too powerful to reverse by then. So where is the exaggeration???

You think that a potential President Clinton would appoint Judges in their 30's who were socialists that live into their 80's? Even if they served on the bench for those full 50 years + that does not even take us to 2070. Obviously that is not going to happen though - you have to base this on at least a small fraction of reality to prolong this conversation a bit. Other than Joe Story (who lasted 30 years) no Justice has even made it to the bench below the age of 48 I believe. The average tenure of an AJ is only 16 years.

What about the rest of the justices already on the Bench like Roberts / Alito and or Thomas? Do they mysteriously or magically just die or resign on her watch?

Neither Alito nor Roberts are even close to the 16 years of average to where they would retire. That is just an average btw. If they survive 16 years, there would be a new President in 2021 (they both came in, in 2005) so maybe this time the GOP would not mess up the race for President and may get an actual conservative.

Fortunately, I do not overstate myself and, with all of the crimes of the left, there is no need to make anything up. You need to understand that all of these things are REAL.

How about we let everyone else be the judge of that, here? You put your case forward on this, I have put forward what I think disputes that - let us see who is exaggerating what and who is talking about things that are real / a reality and who is making up what. Sound good to you?

And the USA truly is at a historic benchmark in its history -- this election will determine if we return to our founding values or if we continue dragging off the rails toward a socialist nightmare state.

Perhaps, but there is only one person who is going to try enact that "white" socialist nightmare ; one person who wants to "bring back jobs" from overseas, for white, unionized employees. Only one candidate who wants to end free trade as we know it. One candidate who wants to close off the border, turn inwards and go neutral on Israel. Only one who wants to ban all Muslims and seize private property, and you know what his name is? You guessed it - Donald J Trump.

As for the hyperbole of the continued determination of election importance, every election is "that" important - every cycle we hear it, it never ever changes...it is historic this time round.

Because no matter who wins, the country will have a disastrous leader masquerading as a President.

 

[psalms 91]

Right - given that it is the Dems who are running a candidate who is the total antithesis of that, right?

No, oh yeah let's wait a minute and see. It is Trump who wants to ban an entire religion of people entering the US, isn't it? Religious freedom? Sure - not with Trump though.

Property rights? Remind me again who used Eminent Domain to kick an old lady out of her house to build his casino again?

Yeah, is is all the fault of the Democrats, right?

*Rolls eyes*



The most nationalized / socialized healthcare system in the world is in the UK. You know what Margret Thatcher had to say on it:



The Tories in the UK are obsessed with nationalized healthcare...like Trump being in favor of an individual mandate.

In regards to US protection of socialist states, when was the last time the US did anything to protect / offer support to somewhere like Venezuela? Or the old USSR? Last I checked the Bastian of freedom himself (Reagan) ended a 50 year old cold war by beating Gorbachev with the help of Thatcher and Bush and beat socialist policies round the East. Vietnam now trades with the US and is a huge partner after the most horrific war since WWII, a free market principle. Trade...something Trump is opposed to. Someone who wants to renegotiate FTA's. Last I checked, it was Bush (43) and his administration who led a coup against Chavez before he died, in 2003. I am not sure where you get the idea that these socialist states get US protection. Look at Trump's comments on NATO - he thinks nations in Scandinavia do not pay enough and need to give more to the running of NATO. Scotland, another socialist state - the US ran against Sturgeon's independence campaign a few years back and has never offered anything to protect it, ever. Refuses to recognize it, as an independent state.



You think that a potential President Clinton would appoint Judges in their 30's who were socialists that live into their 80's? Even if they served on the bench for those full 50 years + that does not even take us to 2070. Obviously that is not going to happen though - you have to base this on at least a small fraction of reality to prolong this conversation a bit. Other than Joe Story (who lasted 30 years) no Justice has even made it to the bench below the age of 48 I believe. The average tenure of an AJ is only 16 years.

What about the rest of the justices already on the Bench like Roberts / Alito and or Thomas? Do they mysteriously or magically just die or resign on her watch?

Neither Alito nor Roberts are even close to the 16 years of average to where they would retire. That is just an average btw. If they survive 16 years, there would be a new President in 2021 (they both came in, in 2005) so maybe this time the GOP would not mess up the race for President and may get an actual conservative.



How about we let everyone else be the judge of that, here? You put your case forward on this, I have put forward what I think disputes that - let us see who is exaggerating what and who is talking about things that are real / a reality and who is making up what. Sound good to you?



Perhaps, but there is only one person who is going to try enact that "white" socialist nightmare ; one person who wants to "bring back jobs" from overseas, for white, unionized employees. Only one candidate who wants to end free trade as we know it. One candidate who wants to close off the border, turn inwards and go neutral on Israel. Only one who wants to ban all Muslims and seize private property, and you know what his name is? You guessed it - Donald J Trump.

As for the hyperbole of the continued determination of election importance, every election is "that" important - every cycle we hear it, it never ever changes...it is historic this time round.

Because no matter who wins, the country will have a disastrous leader masquerading as a President.

Truth

 

[Chloe]

Sure, it is concerning how it seems to be mostly those on the left who want to remove God from everything. At the same time I find those on the right who want to use the force of law to impose God and Godly lifestyles (or at least their interpretation of Godly lifestyles) upon everyone else to be comparably worrying. I don't want to live in a regime where someone else's interpretation of what their chosen holy book says is the law. If we allow that we shouldn't surprised if one day the Quran replaces the Bible and we end up looking like Iran.

Don't say that too loud, please. Because then all the Trump crowd will come along and say "see, this is why we need to ban all the Muslims!" I do not see it happening though - there is a large Jewish population in the North East ; they are all rather socially liberal and some are moving more secular by the day.

Ironically the very people who seek to grant the government power to enforce a religious standard would typically be the first to complain what that power turns sour.

True, but then again that is why they want it to be their religious standard - they don't want one for any old faith. A lot of US conservatives talk about Judaeo-Christian values, primarily because that is the category they fit into.

The loss of freedom isn't a purely Democrat issue. Was the Patriot Act introduced by a Democrat?

To be fair the loss of freedoms was more due to the suspension of the writ of HC. I could even understand Bush doing so temporarily ; Obama making it permanent policy was just appalling. The PA was more targeted at suspected terrorists and then watered down as provisions sunset-ed, so it was not a blanket . Carte Blanche loss of rights. I agree that it was a mixed bag though - and some was likely needed, too. Some went too far and some has been repealed and sadly, some enforced to a greater extent.

Sure, although that begs the question of why the USA provides protection for countries without receiving anything in return. Socialist societies like Venezuela aren't working at all, while other socialist societies like Norway are actually doing pretty well. Norway's Sovereign Wealth Fund grew so large it had to be split in two, for example.

Okay somebody has to explain to me where this notion comes from that the US protects socialist states - name one. Where the US does have and offer defense is through bi-lateral agreements, like protecting Taiwan, if ever mainland China ever invaded. That is protecting a nation state (with or without recognition, depending who you ask) from invasion by a communist power. Same protections afforded to South Korea, Japan and others. Also military bases are stationed round the world, which benefits the US greatly - in intelligence and battle ready capabilities of hot spots to deal with, airspace access and all sorts. With that comes automatic protection because the land that is leased is US territory, no matter what else. (Take Guantanamo Bay for example). That is aside from embassies and the Vienna convention too. Also the US pays for this privilege / facility, to keep all the other bases / facilities and the ready ability to spring into action round the world. Without it the US would have little to no airspace rights, no HUMINT on the ground and pressure from everyone to do more when it comes to funding for NATO etc. The US gets way more out of this and does not protect nations with governments that share hostile views to it, with the rare exception of the likes of Saudi Arabia and co.

The rest of the post I have already addressed in replies to others - no need to rehash.

 

[Highlander]

Right - given that it is the Dems who are running a candidate who is the total antithesis of that, right?
No, oh yeah let's wait a minute and see. It is Trump who wants to ban an entire religion of people entering the US, isn't it? Religious freedom? Sure - not with Trump though.
Property rights? Remind me again who used Eminent Domain to kick an old lady out of her house to build his casino again?
Yeah, is is all the fault of the Democrats, right?
*Rolls eyes*

As your eyes are rolling, you must be feeling the guilt from making so many false statements. Such as the lie that Trump will ban entire religions from moving to the USA.

The fact is that Trump will prohibit anyone, regardless of religion, from entering the USA if a complete background check cannot be made so we know exactly who and what they are. For example, if a person with firm belief in Sharia Law wants to live in the USA, they should be denied admission because their communist-like philosophy is the opposite of our constitution, which guarantees freedom for all.

I recognize that you and Hillary would rather have terrorist cells hide among these people and be given admission to our country. But those who want to keep our nation as safe as possible do not agree with you.

In regards to US protection of socialist states, when was the last time the US did anything to protect / offer support to somewhere like Venezuela? Or the old USSR? Last I checked the Bastian of freedom himself (Reagan) ended a 50 year old cold war by beating Gorbachev with the help of Thatcher and Bush and beat socialist policies round the East. Vietnam now trades with the US and is a huge partner after the most horrific war since WWII, a free market principle. Trade...something Trump is opposed to. Someone who wants to renegotiate FTA's. Last I checked, it was Bush (43) and his administration who led a coup against Chavez before he died, in 2003. I am not sure where you get the idea that these socialist states get US protection. Look at Trump's comments on NATO - he thinks nations in Scandinavia do not pay enough and need to give more to the running of NATO. Scotland, another socialist state - the US ran against Sturgeon's independence campaign a few years back and has never offered anything to protect it, ever. Refuses to recognize it, as an independent state.

The US provides protection to our allies or other places where our national interest is at stake. Didn't you know that?

As for trade, you are displaying more ignorance here. Trump is not against trade. He is against UNFAIR trade. He is in favor of FAIR trade. Why are you opposed to it?

You think that a potential President Clinton would appoint Judges in their 30's who were socialists that live into their 80's? Even if they served on the bench for those full 50 years + that does not even take us to 2070. Obviously that is not going to happen though - you have to base this on at least a small fraction of reality to prolong this conversation a bit. Other than Joe Story (who lasted 30 years) no Justice has even made it to the bench below the age of 48 I believe. The average tenure of an AJ is only 16 years.

My friend, there are federal judges still on the bench from the 1980s. And we're not arguing about mathematics here, although you would seem to desire this to deflect from the main point.

The main point is that young federal judges, appointed for LIFE, have the potential to continue ruling AGAINST the constitution for many decades. And the damage they would do would affect the nation for many decades beyond that.

I do believe that you could try to understand reality all the way into 2070 and still not grasp the point. LOL

What about the rest of the justices already on the Bench like Roberts / Alito and or Thomas? Do they mysteriously or magically just die or resign on her watch?

If you are paying attention to what the candidates, and other political commentators, are saying, you'd already know that the next president could conceivably nominate a record number of SCOTUS justices, possibly as many as five or six.

We need Trump in there to nominate traditional American values oriented justices -- who do what a supreme court justice is supposed to do: make rulings based on the constitution, not on a leftist agenda.

Hillary would try to replace the late, conservative Scalia with someone like Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. The others, such as Thomas, have hinted at possible retirement in the immediate years ahead.

P.S. Scalia DID "mysteriously or magically" just die. That is why there is an opening right now.

Neither Alito nor Roberts are even close to the 16 years of average to where they would retire. That is just an average btw. If they survive 16 years, there would be a new President in 2021 (they both came in, in 2005) so maybe this time the GOP would not mess up the race for President and may get an actual conservative.

There is no rule that says a judge must serve 16 years before retiring. You are worshiping at the altar of meaningless statistics a bit too much.

How about we let everyone else be the judge of that, here? You put your case forward on this, I have put forward what I think disputes that - let us see who is exaggerating what and who is talking about things that are real / a reality and who is making up what. Sound good to you?

Here is what sounds good to me: Fortunately, I do not overstate myself and, with all of the crimes of the left, there is no need to make anything up. You need to understand that all of these things are REAL.

Perhaps, but there is only one person who is going to try enact that "white" socialist nightmare ;

What is a "white socialist nightmare?" You sound like a racist.

one person who wants to "bring back jobs" from overseas, for white, unionized employees.

You further sound like a racist for even thinking in terms of American jobs coming back to our country "for white, unionized employees."

Only one candidate who wants to end free trade as we know it.

Trump wants to end UNFAIR trade and replace it with FAIR trade that does not cost the USA lots of money and jobs. It is clear that you favor those unfair trading tactics, which leads me to wonder whose side you are on.

One candidate who wants to close off the border, turn inwards

By the very definition, all nations have borders. That is what makes them nations. And many of them have borders that are closed to all except who are legally permitted to enter. I do believe that YOU are turning inwards as you try to ignore the realities of the world. The mark of a perfect liberal.

and go neutral on Israel.

The Obama/Hillary regime (especially Obama) has made many hateful comments about Israel because, as a Muslim (at least at from his younger years), Obama hates Jews. Trump is a friend of Israel and would ensure that the USA continues to be a strong ally of Israel. Once again, your thoughts are going off the rails of reality.

Only one who wants to ban all Muslims

Once again, he does not plan to ban all Muslims. But Muslims who come from terrorist nations -- and who cannot be fully vetted and also prove their loyalty to the USA -- certainly are NOT welcome in the USA because they present a grave danger to our citizens. Even to you, although you don't seem capable of understanding this.

and seize private property,

Trump CREATES property, he does not steal it. Once again, you are ignoring reality and making things up.

and you know what his name is? You guessed it - Donald J Trump.

I never realized that Donald J. Trump is the proper way to spell Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wow, we learn new things every day! LOL

As for the hyperbole of the continued determination of election importance, every election is "that" important - every cycle we hear it, it never ever changes...it is historic this time round.

Time after time, quote after quote, you continue to demonstrate your fragile grasp on reality and the things that have been done to this country over the past 7.5 years. It is apathetic ignorance such as this that has placed our nation in the type of peril it has never experienced since its inception.

Because no matter who wins, the country will have a disastrous leader masquerading as a President.

I've given you the solid, conservative, traditional/constitutional American values that Trump is running on. And, if you still refuse to open your eyes to reality, you should at least cease masquerading as a knowledgeable political conversationalist.

 

[Ruth]

I don't care what anyone thinks, HRC is the more qualified person to be president and I will happily vote for her. Now don't all attack me at once, remember the flaming rule.:=D:hee hee!

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't care what anyone thinks, HRC is the more qualified person to be president and I will happily vote for her. Now don't all attack me at once, remember the flaming rule.

I agree. Hillary Clinton is a better choice than Donald Trump. Since one or the other of these will be elected according to the opinion polls the choice is who do you want Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

 

[tango]

Don't say that too loud, please. Because then all the Trump crowd will come along and say "see, this is why we need to ban all the Muslims!" I do not see it happening though - there is a large Jewish population in the North East ; they are all rather socially liberal and some are moving more secular by the day.

The thing is that some Muslims do need to be banned and some need to be rooted out and deported. Just not all of them. As things stand it often seems that those on the right would seek to ban anyone with brown skin and a beard, and those on the left would gladly allow people to come in carrying their explosive devices. I realise it's not that simple but it does often seem that partisan positions get silly and the best solution is somewhere in the middle. There is a problem with a number of Muslims not respecting the culture of their host nations, but it's far from universal.

True, but then again that is why they want it to be their religious standard - they don't want one for any old faith. A lot of US conservatives talk about Judaeo-Christian values, primarily because that is the category they fit into.

Sure, but it's the danger of giving the government a privilege. If the government gets to impose a religious standard by force of law the people who gave it that power don't get to bleat if they dislike the standard enforced. It's the same argument I use against the legal prohibition of sodomy (which some call for), namely that once we allow the government the right to dictate what happens between consenting adults in private we give them the right to dictate what happens between a heterosexual married couple in private at the same time.

To be fair the loss of freedoms was more due to the suspension of the writ of HC. I could even understand Bush doing so temporarily ; Obama making it permanent policy was just appalling. The PA was more targeted at suspected terrorists and then watered down as provisions sunset-ed, so it was not a blanket . Carte Blanche loss of rights. I agree that it was a mixed bag though - and some was likely needed, too. Some went too far and some has been repealed and sadly, some enforced to a greater extent.

All sorts of things are allegedly targeted at terrorists and suspected terrorists but in practice appear to be targeted more at the average civilian who doesn't want government eyes on their business. In theory restricting the use of cash is great at hampering terrorist activity but it probably has a much larger impact on the average person just trying to go about their business without putting everything through the bank. To say that having a couple of grand in cash is suspicious is absurd.

Okay somebody has to explain to me where this notion comes from that the US protects socialist states - name one. Where the US does have and offer defense is through bi-lateral agreements, like protecting Taiwan, if ever mainland China ever invaded. That is protecting a nation state (with or without recognition, depending who you ask) from invasion by a communist power. Same protections afforded to South Korea, Japan and others. Also military bases are stationed round the world, which benefits the US greatly - in intelligence and battle ready capabilities of hot spots to deal with, airspace access and all sorts. With that comes automatic protection because the land that is leased is US territory, no matter what else. (Take Guantanamo Bay for example). That is aside from embassies and the Vienna convention too. Also the US pays for this privilege / facility, to keep all the other bases / facilities and the ready ability to spring into action round the world. Without it the US would have little to no airspace rights, no HUMINT on the ground and pressure from everyone to do more when it comes to funding for NATO etc. The US gets way more out of this and does not protect nations with governments that share hostile views to it, with the rare exception of the likes of Saudi Arabia and co.

The post I replied to talked of the US protecting nation states. I don't know one way or the other just what protection is offered and under what conditions so, rather than challenging it outright, I queried why the US would do such a thing in exchange for nothing.

 

[Chloe]

Good post - we may have some minor differences but in general it is a general amount of unity. I now am going to see if I can reply to Highlander's post without needing to break it down into 3 parts...

 

[Chloe]

As your eyes are rolling, you must be feeling the guilt from making so many false statements.

Eye rolling equates to guilt to you, does it?

Such as the lie that Trump will ban entire religions from moving to the USA.

Well, he said it so you are right, it probably is going to go nowhere...still, he did definitely say it:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...l-muslims-entering-us-san-bernardino-shooting

Temporary or otherwise, he said it. Plain and simple (sorry if you have comprehension problems).

The fact is that Trump will prohibit anyone, regardless of religion, from entering the USA if a complete background check cannot be made so we know exactly who and what they are. For example, if a person with firm belief in Sharia Law wants to live in the USA, they should be denied admission because their communist-like philosophy is the opposite of our constitution, which guarantees freedom for all.

He said that there should be a temporary ban on all Muslims - he did not say that those Muslims with certain beliefs, or those that are a thread to the US, he said all. Period.

I recognize that you and Hillary would rather have terrorist cells hide among these people and be given admission to our country. But those who want to keep our nation as safe as possible do not agree with you.

Why the cringe? If I want to smack you down I will say as much - do me a favor and return suit. I can't describe what I really think of Hillary here or what I have written in the past due to the language / profanity but I don't have take an element of cringe to explain. Trump may well indeed want to keep the nation safe, as may you - but Trump has no clue how to do it. I don't doubt that your heart is in the right place in trying to do it but I do have the urge to pat you on the shoulder and go "blesssss", because your competence is questionable given that you associate Trump with security.

The US provides protection to our allies or other places where our national interest is at stake. Didn't you know that?

I just said that - but that protection comes at a cost and part of that is repayment for the various amount of logistical tactical and strategic aid given to the US by other nations. I asked you to name one of them that is a socialist state though.

As for trade, you are displaying more ignorance here. Trump is not against trade. He is against UNFAIR trade. He is in favor of FAIR trade. Why are you opposed to it?

Again with the cringe-worthy "it's not fair" whining - something Trump is synonymous for.

Okay...why is it not fair?

Because Fair Trade =

http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/what-is-fairtrade

Free trade =

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade

So unless you / Trump are not happy with the price of bananas from Africa then I think it is not me that is displaying ignorance here. You are muddling up issues here. (Deep down, I think it would have just been easier to explain the reason why trade deals are not always fair, but I chose to go this route instead).

My friend, there are federal judges still on the bench from the 1980s. And we're not arguing about mathematics here, although you would seem to desire this to deflect from the main point.

Even if there are judges from the 80's (let's say even 1980) that would mean that they have been around for 36 years. You said the rest of the century. That would be 84 years from now, see the difference? In fact, even if they were in their 30's, they would have to live until 110+ just to live the rest of the century.

The main point is that young federal judges, appointed for LIFE, have the potential to continue ruling AGAINST the constitution for many decades. And the damage they would do would affect the nation for many decades beyond that.

True - they could...of course the checks and balances afforded by the Senate should and would protect. Of course the Senate is likely to stay with the GOP - if it weren't for the down ticket effect of Trump. The entire system and foundations / principle the US is set up on is that of a Republic that allows such longevity ; that great Bastian you keep talking about. You want to talk about 220 years of greatness? That is what the greatness entailed - lifetime appointment of judges, treaties ratified by the Senate (Like FTA's) and guess what, an EC system that would allow for electors to chose a President. You either want this system, or you don't.

I do believe that you could try to understand reality all the way into 2070 and still not grasp the point. LOL

Umm it is you that has been wrong on every single issue here, I am just correcting you, bit by bit, as I go along.

If you are paying attention to what the candidates, and other political commentators, are saying, you'd already know that the next president could conceivably nominate a record number of SCOTUS justices, possibly as many as five or six.

There would have to be 5 or 6 vacancies for that...since the end of WW2, only Eisenhower has appointed more than 4:

Dwight D. Eisenhower 5
John F. Kennedy 2
Lyndon B. Johnson 2
Richard Nixon 4
Gerald Ford 1
Jimmy Carter 0
Ronald Reagan 3
George H. W. Bush 2
Bill Clinton 2
George W. Bush 2
Barack Obama 2

Of those, none appointed more than 2 if they only served 1 full term ; you still have 2020 - try not to mess it up again.

We need Trump in there to nominate traditional American values oriented justices -- who do what a supreme court justice is supposed to do: make rulings based on the constitution, not on a leftist agenda.

You believe that he will do that? ?He is lying to you / your base and making them look very gullible / foolish for believing him. He will sell you up the river as fast he can.

Hillary would try to replace the late, conservative Scalia with someone like Ruth Bader-Ginsberg.

Well what did you expect her to do - nominate conservative judges? When Sandra Day stood down Bush 43 replaced her with Scalia, hardly a like for like - this is what Presidents do.

The others, such as Thomas, have hinted at possible retirement in the immediate years ahead.

So has Kennedy, Ginsberg and others. Scalia said that he wanted to stand down on the watch of a Republican, didn't work out so well for him, did it? You can't predict your own future, leave along someone else and their lifespan.

P.S. Scalia DID "mysteriously or magically" just die. That is why there is an opening right now.

I am glad you brought this up - this is where Trump fans are a lot more comfortable - conspiracy theories and wild accusations. (Stolen elections / magic deaths, all sorts).

 

[Ruth]

The thing is that some Muslims do need to be banned and some need to be rooted out and deported. Just not all of them. As things stand it often seems that those on the right would seek to ban anyone with brown skin and a beard, and those on the left would gladly allow people to come in carrying their explosive devices. I realise it's not that simple but it does often seem that partisan positions get silly and the best solution is somewhere in the middle. There is a problem with a number of Muslims not respecting the culture of their host nations, but it's far from universal.



Sure, but it's the danger of giving the government a privilege. If the government gets to impose a religious standard by force of law the people who gave it that power don't get to bleat if they dislike the standard enforced. It's the same argument I use against the legal prohibition of sodomy (which some call for), namely that once we allow the government the right to dictate what happens between consenting adults in private we give them the right to dictate what happens between a heterosexual married couple in private at the same time.



All sorts of things are allegedly targeted at terrorists and suspected terrorists but in practice appear to be targeted more at the average civilian who doesn't want government eyes on their business. In theory restricting the use of cash is great at hampering terrorist activity but it probably has a much larger impact on the average person just trying to go about their business without putting everything through the bank. To say that having a couple of grand in cash is suspicious is absurd.



The post I replied to talked of the US protecting nation states. I don't know one way or the other just what protection is offered and under what conditions so, rather than challenging it outright, I queried why the US would do such a thing in exchange for nothing.

Yes it is not that simple that those on the left would allow Muslims into the country with explosive devices so why even say that? I think most are in agreement that we need to protect our country and things are being done to do that. Vetting takes 2 years as it is now. We can't help it if we get homegrown extremists'; it's hard to protect ourselves from them.

 

[Chloe]

There is no rule that says a judge must serve 16 years before retiring. You are worshiping at the altar of meaningless statistics a bit too much.

No, you are just incapable of reading.

This is what I said:

Neither Alito nor Roberts are even close to the 16 years of average to where they would retire. That is just an average btw.

It was what you just quoted - i even said (just to spell it out one more time) This is just an average.

I never said that it was a rule, just a mean / average. This is basic reading / comprehension 101. No worshiping, just reading - try it.

I got it from here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/faq_justices.aspx

What is the average length of a Justice’s tenure?
The average number of years that Justices have served is 16.

Just so that we are clear - there should be no excuse for farther confusion, on your part.

Here is what sounds good to me: Fortunately, I do not overstate myself and, with all of the crimes of the left, there is no need to make anything up. You need to understand that all of these things are REAL.

Made up voices in your head, are not real. If you want to put it to the rest of the member, have at it - I think more may be ideologically aligned with you, not me. I will still make my case to them, if they agree with you, then so be it.

What is a "white socialist nightmare?" You sound like a racist.

Well, for Trump it is a lot loser to a wet dream of course...I am not being a racist, I am accusing him of being one. Because he is one. Through his oppressed victim hood / minority status and permanency of failures, nothing is ever his doing, nor fault. Just those evil little Mexicans who come over the border to rape all our women, steal all our jobs and refuse to join the mother race / hate on Israel. I am entirely grateful, that at this point, he didn't chose David Duke as his running mate.

You further sound like a racist for even thinking in terms of American jobs coming back to our country "for white, unionized employees."

Who else does he want it for other than those coal miners and steel workers in Appalachia? The manufacturing jobs in Michigan and of course the auto industry. Yet I am the racist, eh?

Trump wants to end UNFAIR trade and replace it with FAIR trade that does not cost the USA lots of money and jobs.

Okay you have all but called me an idiot to date in this thread and even though I have kind of had an answer for everything / toyed around with you a bit, this one I am telling you for your own good:

Stop confusing free and fair trade.

Fair trade is not what you mean. You want (presumably) free trade deals that are more beneficial to the US, even though they are already agreed upon - all you mean to say is that you wish to renege on treaties that you have already agreed to, and not honor them, not that you care about poor starving children in Africa. (Perish the thought, not to mention the crop).

It is clear that you favor those unfair trading tactics, which leads me to wonder whose side you are on.

I am not quite so free trade as you would think nor do I believe in unfair trading practices - I believe that exploiting young employees and children in third world countries for the purposes of cheap goods is unethical. I am not for that at all - but that is not the sum of all equals. I.e. just because I am opposed to unfair trading practices does not make m in favor of "Fair" trade so to speak - as that is an entirely separate entity. You do not realize what it is and you really would do yourself a favor if you learned the first thing about it so that you could stop confusing it with treaties and bi-lateral trade agreements between nation states or multi-lateral agreements such as NAFTA / CAFTA etc. At this point you are just parroting Trump talking points - but you are muddling some of the words.

By the very definition, all nations have borders. That is what makes them nations. And many of them have borders that are closed to all except who are legally permitted to enter. I do believe that YOU are turning inwards as you try to ignore the realities of the world. The mark of a perfect liberal.

There was but one perfect liberal in the world - he died for all of us 2000 years ago. I didn't agree with Marco Rubio a lot through this election cycle but he sure was right when he answered the question of being a savior to the GOP through that debate - there is but one perfect man who walked the face of this planet - you should know that.

As for borders, I am not opposed to borders. What I am opposed to is rounding and deporting everyone under the sun for simple enough issues like civilian overstays - not criminal / felonious. What I am also opposed to, is banning people based on their religion, in the first place - like he wants to with Muslims. Other nations btw, like Europeans (member states of the EU) cannot control their borders, within the agreements between EU member states ; they are signatory to them. "Legally permitted" as you mentioned. Britain tried to "re-negotiate" that status - had a referendum on it. The British people rejected it. The way the American people will reject Trump. I am not turning inwards at all, you don't even have a clue as to what the base definition of Isolationism is, leave alone protectionism.

The Obama/Hillary regime (especially Obama) has made many hateful comments about Israel because, as a Muslim (at least at from his younger years), Obama hates Jews. Trump is a friend of Israel and would ensure that the USA continues to be a strong ally of Israel. Once again, your thoughts are going off the rails of reality.

Obama is a Muslim who hates all the Jews and Trump likes Israel...and you are telling me that I am the one who is going off the rails of reality? Btw the Democrats pick up the Jewish vote by 70 to 30 on average since the end of the second world war, in every election cycle.

Once again, he does not plan to ban all Muslims. But Muslims who come from terrorist nations -- and who cannot be fully vetted and also prove their loyalty to the USA -- certainly are NOT welcome in the USA because they present a grave danger to our citizens. Even to you, although you don't seem capable of understanding this.

Yes...in this exchange between me and you it is clearly me who has been incapable of understanding things, has it? That is not what Trump said, he said he wanted a blanket ban, of all Muslims.

Trump CREATES property, he does not steal it. Once again, you are ignoring reality and making things up.

Nope, you just can't read, yet again...I did not say steal...I said seize. At this point it is not just comprehension that you are struggling with - you are just not reading what I wrote. I am not making things up, and you are not suffering from dyslexia - you are just seeing and reading what you want to. Trump used ED to force a woman out of her home (an elderly woman) and used her property to go ahead and build more for his casino.

I never realized that Donald J. Trump is the proper way to spell Hillary Rodham Clinton. Wow, we learn new things every day! LOL

See, I was right / correct about you needing help on things to do with English. Comprehension, reading and writing.

Time after time, quote after quote, you continue to demonstrate your fragile grasp on reality and the things that have been done to this country over the past 7.5 years.

No...quote after quote, I have had an answer for you...every single time. I get that reasonable people can have disagreements on some things ; I am sure you can even be one of those "reasonable" people, but in this instance you have just pitched up softball after softball to me and I have smacked it out of the ground. You have been the pitcher on the mound with this his hands on his head kind of looking up in a confused daze like "why she just do that to me?". Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you but some of this has just been too easy - I have had an answer for every single thing you have tried to volley at me. I am fine to keep doing so but that hardly progresses anything...I will try slow it down for you some, drop back to your pace and try help teach you.

I've given you the solid, conservative, traditional/constitutional American values that Trump is running on. And, if you still refuse to open your eyes to reality, you should at least cease masquerading as a knowledgeable political conversationalist.

I didn't - I let my words speak for themselves. If other people here feel as if I am blind / masquerading as something I am not then I am happy to leave. My eyes are wide open and I am living in reality plenty, thank you. I know I have sort of retorted every time with something at you and if you like I will slow it down / go through it slowly with you. Just ask. What you have presented is nothing like what Trump is proposing and what Trump is proposing is nothing to do with conservatism, at all. He is as much a conservative as he is a woman. Don't fall for this guy - it is the biggest con job the electoral system in the US has ever seen.