I have to agree with much of what CC has said. While I am not a rapid Trump supporter, I will vote for him. The U. S. can't afford another leader like Obama. Clinton or Sanders would be like Obama on steroids. Sanders seems like a decent, sincere man, but his political and economic views are hogwash. Clinton's dishonesty and chicanery dwarf anything I have seen in any other American politician. And anyone who thinks Trump is in the race to get something for himself, please take a closer look at Clinton. Particularly, the obvious quid pro quo arrangements by which Bill gets huge speaking fees paid by foreign governments in exchange for favors provided to same by Secretary Hillary. Please Google "clinton russia uranium". At the top of the hit list will be "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal"--an interesting piece from the New York Times. For those not in the know, the Times is no bastion of conservative thinking.

If my choice comes down to the Clinton crime family or greedy Mr. Trump, Trump gets my vote.

Candidate Trump is no more or less specific than was candidate Obama. Like Obama, Trump enjoys popularity among the masses. But the similarities end there. Trump is a patriot; Obama is anything but. In today's political climate, that is sufficient for many. Btw, Trump's position papers can be found at:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions.

They contain legitimate and helpful ideas.

There is an interesting article by Camille Paglia over at Salon.com. It explains the Trump phenomenon as well as anything I've seen or read. It's not long, but it's an interesting left wing perspective:

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/10/i_was_wrong_about_donald_trump_camille_paglia_on_the_gop_front_runners_refreshing_candor_and_his_impetuousness_too/

Here's the money quote:

... Trump’s fearless candor and brash energy feel like a great gust of fresh air, sweeping the tedious clichés and constant guilt-tripping of political correctness out to sea. Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose every word and policy statement on the campaign trail are spoon-fed to her by a giant paid staff and army of shadowy advisors, Trump is his own man, with a steely “damn the torpedoes” attitude. He has a swaggering retro machismo that will give hives to the Steinem cabal. He lives large, with the urban flash and bling of a Frank Sinatra. But Trump is a workaholic who doesn’t drink and who has an interesting penchant for sophisticated, strong-willed European women.

Is it relevant that Camille Paglia is a Lesbian? Maybe. Anyway, I suspect the left-leaning folks here will enjoy the predictable Salon reader comments.



--twk


.

Al, this is the first one I remember:

Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)

Obama intervened to favor the UAW--at the expense of investors who took the risk.

I cannot attest to the complete accuracy of the following list, but many of them clearly are, as far as my memory and understanding of the Constitution are concerned:

https://tisaboutfreedom.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/a-list-of-obamas-constitutional-violations/

You must remember one or two of these.



.

https://tisaboutfreedom.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/a-list-of-obamas-constitutional-violations/

Incredible !

Well for starters!

By: Alan Korwin

"Can just anyone be elected President of the United States? No, of course not. Foreigners for example are not eligible. The Constitution spells out the eligibility standards:


Article II, Section 1: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”


As you can see, Article II distinguishes between Citizens and natural born Citizens. Although we know the Founding Fathers used language with extreme care, this is now raising a ruckus. I’m a researcher, I’ve done the legwork, so let me set the record straight. The answers we need are right there in the historical record. This is not a judiciable matter for courts as has been recently suggested, along with other modern-day distractions and red herrings. Here’s the short version.

At the time of our nation’s founding Benjamin Franklin obtained three copies of Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel. There is a record of the acquisition from Franklin backing this up that still exists today. I’ll quote that in a moment. It was the preeminent guide on the subject. Franklin put one in a library, sent one to the College of Massachusetts, and brought one to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia for the delegates to use, which they did.

This book they used defines “natural born citizen” clearly as a person born in a country, both of whose parents are citizens of the country at the time of birth. It’s a plain, clear definition of the term they used in the Constitution.

It’s a three-part requirement. It allows for no foreign birth or parentage in a person who is a natural born citizen. It is distinct from ordinary citizenship. Article II in the Constitution recognizes the distinction.

John Jay, who became our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, sent a letter to George Washington, which also still exists, which I’ll also quote in a moment, confirming that the only way to ensure the U.S. presidency remains free of what today we would call “foreign entanglements” was to require that eligibility be limited to natural born citizens only. Washington replied, thanking him for the advice. In editing the final version of the Constitution, the Framers changed Article II from citizen to natural born Citizen, capitalized that way. Records of all this exist.

There, in a nutshell, is the entire situation.

No court decision is needed. The idea that a court must weigh in because the Founders didn’t define the term in the Constitution is nonsense. It is the same type of nonsense modern people have created to undermine other fundamental elements of our Constitution. The Founders knew exactly what the term meant, just like they knew what “weights and measures” meant when they used that (without defining it) and they used it with precision, for deliberate reason.

The presidency is the only office in our entire legal structure that has this requirement. Citizen appears throughout the law. Natural born citizen appears in one place and one place only—as a requirement for the highest office in the land. You can stop here and you have the truth of the matter, or read further if this interests you and you want the details.

This White Paper is not about liking one candidate over another—I do not endorse or oppose candidates, as people who know me are well aware. This is about liking the Constitution over any candidate. It would be wrong to let the fact that we have allowed a person into office who somehow avoided proper review and does not meet the eligibility requirements stated in our Constitution, to justify offering up additional candidates who similarly do not meet the fundamental test set out in our nation’s charter."

So, Obama isn't a natural born citizen! His father wasn't American. he's thumbed his nose at OUR constitution to begin with. So the American people have seated an ineligible person to preside over us. This in itself is unconstitutional. So anything he does after that as president is unconstitutional. He can't sign any bill into law because he isn't legally the president! And, by the way, after 8 years of watching this guy operate you need proof that he's not spitting on the constitution? Come on Al, I thought you were smarter than that.

COngratulations. You have proved your point.

You have also invalidated the presidencies of Andrew Jackson Jame Buchanan, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover.

Well done. I had no idea you were also a birther.

So this totally validates voting for a man who has already threatened one of our closest neighbors and largest trading partners with war, a man who contradicts himself from sentence to sentence and a man who is currently being sued for fraud.

Fine, I totally accept your argument, you win.

Fuck it, I quit.

Trump is a fucking idiot.

Just thought I would stop by and say hi everyone

But Hillary is a Lying Scumbag! ...any vote against her is a good vote.

Just saying hi to all.

Amen Brother!

Thanks CC, ...we should all be this passionate about photoshopping.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said about you...a birther!
Hope you'll continue to polish your array of tinfoil hats.

Tawiskaro wrote:

Candidate Trump is no more or less specific than was candidate Obama. Like Obama, Trump enjoys popularity among the masses. But the similarities end there. Trump is a patriot; Obama is anything but. In today's political climate, that is sufficient for many.

Oh, pleeeze! He's no "patriot", he's a salesman!

Trump is a master at manipulating people to buy what he's selling. But this time it's not his steaks or mortgages or real estate classes. It's the presidency of the United States, and once they've realized they've been had, the American people cannot join a class action lawsuit to ask for their money back.

Here is the crux of what so many have cautioned Trump supporters about. Trump is a political chameleon capable of changing his positions based on what he thinks best suits him politically at any moment. Trump's answer Thursday night showed his candidacy to be purely cosmetic, not one of honest conviction. This should be worrisome to the supporters who think they are getting one thing when they may really be getting something else.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/opinions/gop-debate-miami-setmayer/?iid=ob_lockedrail_bottomlist&iref=obinsite

AIPAC Loyalty Oath Israel .
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXaCym8RjJU[/youtube]
..
I must be a nazi/denier/ for daring to post this..
America..YOU DESERVE ALL YOU GET.
(AND DON'T SAY IT DOESN'T CONCERN ME)..sorry for shouting.
My kids fought in their fucking shitholes
----------
the end

okay where is the discussion on religion, since you've started one on politics!

Don't forget S E X.