Trump is "a clear and present danger"

[sculptor]

Perhaps?
The United States Department of Labor (DOL) is a cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government...
Which would seem to indicate that the president has some control via existing laws.

 

[iceaura]

Real break from the republican platform
He ain't a republican.

He's a solid, mainstream Republican. His proposals are less progressive/liberal than Reagan's.

We need more progressive/liberal legislation like Trump is proposing.

Write to Republican Congressmen, tell them to quit blocking the Democratic Party's agenda. And never vote for any Republican politician, until the current Party has been replaced.

 

[sculptor]

psssst
Government sponsored maternal leave ain't part of the republican agenda.

We have had democrats for 16 of the last 24 years.
Do we have government sponsored maternal leave?
Maybe you have been betting on the wrong horse?

 

[wellwisher]

So many of the modern social problems, that need to be addressed, can be traced back to liberal social engineering. For example, the need for paid maternal leave only become necessary after liberalism broke up the family unit.

The break up of the family, increased the resources that were required for the husband to support his family. Divorce needs two residences, one for wife/children and one for the husband. This added cost was more than many males could afford, so more women and children ended up on welfare. This created the need for a whole new social program to mop up the compounding mess.

The rising rate of divorce, also meant the price of housing started to go up for the remaining stable families, due to more demand for housing by divorce couples. Now the mothers in the stable families needed to go to work, since it was too expensive on one income. Now these women needed child care, which is another expense for the family. Now we require government action. The old stable family had maternity leave, which was called raising a child.

Trump is needed to pull the liberals weeds, out by the root, less they infect the garden of culture, leading to new compounding problems. Obama fixed health care, resulting in higher premiums for all, to where now more people need government assistance. Free sex led to AIDS and abortions, which are an international expense. If we get Hillary, we will get another round of compounding problems, since liberals have no sense.

Hillary is sick and all her lying about her e-mails will not go away. Trump is gaining in the polls and Republicans are registering more new voters than the Democrats. President Trump will set back liberalism decades; weed the garden, and restore social efficiency.

 

[iceaura]

psssst
Government sponsored maternal leave ain't part of the republican agenda.

Trump is a mainstream Republican candidate, in line with W, Reagan, and Eisenhower.

btw: His maternity leave proposal, which is one sentence long (details later, supposedly), is to be paid for by diverting money within the current unemployment insurance program - so no new taxes on rich people, a diversion of money away from current recipients of unemployment benefits, a wedge for reducing maternal and even prenatal welfare benefits, and not much in the way of government "sponsorship" - private industry already pays for most of it.

Sounds like a fairly standard Republican plan to me.

We have had democrats for 16 of the last 24 years.
Do we have government sponsored maternal leave?
Maybe you have been betting on the wrong horse?

Are you actually suggesting that if we had had Republican presidents for their 16 years, the liberal agenda would have suffered less damage than it did under Clinton and Obama? Because if you had actually stated that, instead of employing slippery and deniable innuendo, it would have looked obviously goofball.

Why do you insist on pretending that what has happened in American politics since 1980 has not happened? That W&Cheney did not do what they did? That the Republican Party has somehow not behaved as it has since Nixon's time, and had the influence on US national politics and policies it has had since Reagan?

If you don't like this stuff you say you don't like, if you want better government, you have to get rid of enough of the current Republican Party's politicians to break its grip on the US government. That's not sufficient, of course, but it's a necessary step. And that means not voting for them. Any of them. Trump included.

 

[sculptor]

ice
You have developed a simplistic view of politics:
"Democrats good Republicans bad"
Trump republican
therefore Trump bad.
You paint everybody with too broad a brush
and blind yourself thereby
You really need to find a way to see past that silly bias and look at the individual.

View each candidate with a unbiased eye and come up with something approximating reality.

 

[Randwolf]

Trump republican

Trump is only Republican today for convenience - which kind of blows the rest of your theory on Ice's objectivity...

 

[sculptor]

Trum is only Republican today for convenience - which kind of blows the rest of your theory on Ice's objectivity...

Would that it were so.
ice doesn't see it that way.
Ice, sees it differently than do you.

 

[Randwolf]

Would that it were so.
Ice, sees it differently than do you.

Really? Are you sure about that? Trump would run with the cthulhu party if it was a convenient means to his ends...

 

[joepistole]

So many of the modern social problems, that need to be addressed, can be traced back to liberal social engineering. For example, the need for paid maternal leave only become necessary after liberalism broke up the family unit.

And where is your evidence "liberalism broke up the family unit?" It doesn't exist, because it isn't true...oops. Where is your evidence the "family unit" has broken up?

The break up of the family, increased the resources that were required for the husband to support his family. Divorce needs two residences, one for wife/children and one for the husband. This added cost was more than many males could afford, so more women and children ended up on welfare. This created the need for a whole new social program to mop up the compounding mess.

And you think that makes any kind of sense...seriously? Women were so much better barefoot and pregnant, is that your argument? If people wanted to live on one income, they can. It's possible. People to it today and they have done it for decades even on very modest wages. People have made choices, and women have chosen to get jobs.

The rising rate of divorce, also meant the price of housing started to go up for the remaining stable families, due to more demand for housing by divorce couples. Now the mothers in the stable families needed to go to work, since it was too expensive on one income. Now these women needed child care, which is another expense for the family. Now we require government action. The old stable family had maternity leave, which was called raising a child.

That's hogwash. There is no indication divorce has caused a housing shortage or the price of housing to increase. Families have always needed child care. And most people can live on one salary. On the lower end of the income spectrum, childcare often costs more than one of the parents' income. So in many cases taking care of the couple's children is cheaper than working. So your argument, as is your custom, just doesn't hold water.

Are you saying liberals are culprits because they are responsible for allowing couples to divorce? Do you want government to force couples to stay together at all costs?

Trump is needed to pull the liberals weeds, out by the root, less they infect the garden of culture, leading to new compounding problems. Obama fixed health care, resulting in higher premiums for all, to where now more people need government assistance. Free sex led to AIDS and abortions, which are an international expense. If we get Hillary, we will get another round of compounding problems, since liberals have no sense.

Hmm...and where is your evidence of "liberals weed"? You are making stuff up again. Healthcare costs have always been high. Some people have to pay higher healthcare premiums under Obamacare as they were uninsured or under insured prior to Obamacare. So you, as is so typical of Republicans being more than a little disingenuous. If you paid nothing because you didn't have healthcare insurance and were freeloading before Obamacare, now you have to pay something. That's not a bad thing. That's a good thing. We should all pay what we can or our healthcare insurance and that is one of the thing Obamacare allows.

Hillary is sick and all her lying about her e-mails will not go away. Trump is gaining in the polls and Republicans are registering more new voters than the Democrats. President Trump will set back liberalism decades; weed the garden, and restore social efficiency.

Did you hear Trump today at his Bethel United speech? His words were slurred as if he had suffered a stroke. Trump hasn't released his emails. He hasn't released his taxes. He hasn't released his audit notification letter from the IRS. So we really don't even know if Trump is being audited. Trump hasn't even released his tax returns that aren't supposedly under this audit. Hilary has released 39 years of tax returns. Trump hasn't released his charitable donations. Hilary has done all of those things.

Trump has refused to put a barrier between his companies and his family. The Clinton's have. Trump is a self avowed crony capitalist. Hillary isn't. Republicans want government in our bedrooms as evidenced by your posts. Democrats don't. A President Clinton will set this so called "conservatism" back decades and advance middle class prosperity. Most people generally think that is a good thing.

 

[sculptor]

Really? Are you sure about that? Trump would run with the cthulhu party if it was a convenient means to his ends...

agree

 

[iceaura]

ice
You have developed a simplistic view of politics:
"Democrats good Republicans bad"
Trump republican
therefore Trump bad.
- - -

View each candidate with a unbiased eye and come up with something approximating reality.

You have it backwards. "Trump Republican, therefore Republican bad" would be closer, although "Republican bad" has been established since 1968, and does not depend on the recent and entirely predictable welcoming of Trump to Party leadership by the core electoral base (talk about a square peg finding a hole all squared up to fit - - - )

You are also bizarrely confused if you actually think of my views as "Democrats good". Where'd you get that from?

 

[sculptor]

"Republican bad" has been established since 1968, ...

as/per your perspective
OK

 

[iceaura]

as/per your perspective
OK

And your claimed perspective. Nixon's warmaking - including massive bombing of civilians - and racial bigotry pandering was established as standard Republican campaign politics and governance in 1968. The Southern Strategy has been the Republican Strategy ever since, and its consequences the core political principles and central "ideology" of the Party.

 

[sculptor]

VietNam was a democrat's war from Kennedy and Johnson. "Hey hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today?"

Vilify Nixon all you want. Being in the army then, I had a different perspective.
When Nixon got in, we were scheduled(from Johnson and Westmoreland) to hit peak troop strength at 750,000.
Nixon immediately stopped that and began a withdrawal. By the time I left the army, he had troop strength down to 300,000.
As part of his plan, he began negotiating with mainland China.
Having no success with north VietNam at the bargaining tables, he instituted rolling thunder in an effort to bring North VietNam back to the peace talks.

His main mistake was in allowing the crep creeps suck him into a cover-up for their blundering ineptitude, and, it cost him his job and reputation.

Checkers anyone?
Chess?

 

[billvon]

When Nixon got in, we were scheduled(from Johnson and Westmoreland) to hit peak troop strength at 750,000.
Nion immediately stopped that and began a withdrawal. By the time I left the army, he had troop strength down below 300,000.

Yep. He won the election by promising to NOT leave Vietnam, although he claimed to have a "secret plan" to get us out of Vietnam. At least that's what he said before the election. Didn't materialize, of course. It took Gerald Ford to end the war,

 

[sculptor]

billvon, I think you have an inaccurate view.
Just to set the record straight.
nixon, 1972
The Environment:
President Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency, the first Federal unit ever set up to protect our quality of life. He has increased funding for environmental improvement by over 500% and initiated a Legacy of Parks program to bring increased recreational opportunities to cities. No less than 25 separate environment bills have been proposed by him.
Foreign Policy:
President Nixon went to Moscow in May of this year, where he negotiated agreements with the Soviet Union to limit development of antiballistic missile systems, jointly explore space, and combat the diseases plaguing mankind. In March, he visited -- Peking where he made a start toward improving relations between the U.S. And the People's Republic of China. The President has called a halt to crisis diplomacy, seeking to reduce tension in such troubled areas as the Middle East.
Vietnam:
The President has done everything in his power to bring peace to Vietnam without sacrificing the South Vietnamese in the process. He has brought home 500,000 men...reduced casualties by 98%...and cut spending by two-thirds. As this is written, strong steps are being taken to the enemy to get the enemy to cease its aggression and make peace.

That ain't quite "promising not to leave".
Trips to Moscow and Peking as part of the strategy, trying to get them to stop supplying North vietNam with weapons and ammunition.
His direction was a good one. Pity he didn't get to see it through.

Gerald Ford was a place-holder. He didn't have Nixon's drive for "peace with honor" nor political awareness/abilities.

 

[Tiassa]

You have developed a simplistic view of politics:
"Democrats good Republicans bad"

Really? The libertarian who just spent the Democratic primary demonizing decades worth of Democratic politicians and voters?

I think you have developed a simplistic view of our neighbor Iceaura.

 

[joepistole]

VietNam was a democrat's war from Kennedy and Johnson. "Hey hey LBJ how many kids did you kill today?"

Vilify Nixon all you want. Being in the army then, I had a different perspective.
When Nixon got in, we were scheduled(from Johnson and Westmoreland) to hit peak troop strength at 750,000.
Nixon immediately stopped that and began a withdrawal. By the time I left the army, he had troop strength down to 300,000.
As part of his plan, he began negotiating with mainland China.
Having no success with north VietNam at the bargaining tables, he instituted rolling thunder in an effort to bring North VietNam back to the peace talks.

His main mistake was in allowing the crep creeps suck him into a cover-up for their blundering ineptitude, and, it cost him his job and reputation.

Checkers anyone?
Chess?

Except it wasn't. The Vietnam began in 1955. A Republican was POTUS at the time. His name was Eisenhower. You may have heard of him. He had 900 US troops in the country. It's true Democrats escalated the involvement with a surge of troops. You can blame Democrats for the escalation. But you can't blame them for the war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Exit_of_the_French.2C_1950.E2.80.9354

 

[billvon]

billvon, I think you have an inaccurate view.
The Environment:

Funny, I said nothing about the environment.

Foreign Policy:
President Nixon went to Moscow in May of this year, where he negotiated agreements with the Soviet Union to limit development of antiballistic missile systems, jointly explore space, and combat the diseases plaguing mankind. In March, he visited -- Peking where he made a start toward improving relations between the U.S. And the People's Republic of China. The President has called a halt to crisis diplomacy, seeking to reduce tension in such troubled areas as the Middle East.

Funny, I said nothing about foreign policy with Russia.

Vietnam:The President has done everything in his power to bring peace to Vietnam . . . .

I did a search and that entire sentence came from the Richard Nixon 1972 Election Brochure. Looks like you are willing to believe whatever propaganda agrees with your bias.

Yes, he had some great writers. He was also one of the most dishonest, corrupt presidents in history. He ran against George McGovern in 1972. McGovern wanted an immediate withdrawal from Vietnam; as a result, he lost 49 of the 50 states in the biggest landslide election ever. People voted for Nixon, the president who said he would win the war in Vietnam.

Gerald Ford was a place-holder. He didn't have Nixon's drive for "peace with honor" nor political awareness/abilities.

You may consider him a placeholder. He got us out of Vietnam, and for that he deserves praise. But that's just me; I place actions above words. Perhaps you believe words over actions; if so, no wonder you support Trump.