Merry Christmas from Donald Trump

[Unregistered]

You really need to stop and think before writing. Washington DC is, and has been full of politicians and lobbyists making deals with international concerns for as long as the country has had it as the Capitol. Both parties, all the top leaders are knee deep from foreign influence. This grandstanding about Trump and his business interest is just nonsense.

Where do you think the Clinton Foundation hit up people for cash ?Internationals . Globalists . Both parties caved to China under Clinton and Bush. It has been this way since the last regular American, Truman was President. There wouldn't even be a pension for President's if he wasn't the man he was.

The other post about JFK is I suspect, an attempt to point out that all the sensationalism the MSM , in order to support Progressives dishes out about Trump on a daily basis isn't remarkable at all. Any real student of history beyond a talking head sound bite would know this.

I not only know that, but I've stated much the same many times here and wherever anyone might listen.

I'm the guy that believes in Campaign Financing reform and that elections should be paid for through public funds. I'm the one that believes in term limits and the elimination of PACs and lobbyists.

Personally, I like Truman but I also believe the last real President who had the right moral compass was President Carter. Unfortunately, men like Truman and Carter seldom rise to the top. Too many others out for themselves to drag them down on the way.

[Unregistered]

Carter gave up his peanut farm, once elected president, so he wouldn't have any conflicts of interest.
Just sayin'

[Unregistered]

All true. So, why is so much hate for the right? Are you posting just as much toward the left?

I don't post "hate" for either side.

That's the problem in the first place. Everyone just wants to spew bile and not solve problems.

When I see the liberal view taking a wrong tack, I call them out for it. Same with the conservatives.

The shame is that the good folk in both camps seem powerless to the extremists with the most strident voice.

I don't understand how, if so many claim to see this, why we still give these extremists so much power over us. They are not "taking" this power. We cede it to them without any thought whatsoever.


It's mind boggling.

[Unregistered]

Carter gave up his peanut farm, once elected president, so he wouldn't have any conflicts of interest.
Just sayin'

Of course he did.

That is what was expected of him by the American people.

He also showed us his tax returns. To be honest, Republican or Democrat, all have given up their private business interests while serving the nation. They all showed us their taxes too.


Until Donald come into office. Again, when you have no moral compass.......

[Unregistered]

When I see the liberal view taking a wrong tack, I call them out for it. Same with the conservatives.

Great, and that's fair. I haven't seen a lot calling out the Left, but I'll trust that to be true.

[Unregistered]

I not only know that, but I've stated much the same many times here and wherever anyone might listen.

I'm the guy that believes in Campaign Financing reform and that elections should be paid for through public funds. I'm the one that believes in term limits and the elimination of PACs and lobbyists.

Personally, I like Truman but I also believe the last real President who had the right moral compass was President Carter. Unfortunately, men like Truman and Carter seldom rise to the top. Too many others out for themselves to drag them down on the way.

In my opinion Carter was a good man, but President at the wrong time in history.

" moral compass" is a vague term, one person's moral compass may be different than any other. We do not elect Presidents for their behavior , but in the hopes of getting the results from what they propose.

[Unregistered]

In my opinion Carter was a good man, but President at the wrong time in history.

" moral compass" is a vague term, one person's moral compass may be different than any other. We do not elect Presidents for their behavior , but in the hopes of getting the results from what they propose.

Oh, I think the nature of the person and his or her personal morality has to play a large part in the selection of our President. And if it didn't matter, why all the fuss about Clinton and Lewinsky or Donald grabbing pussy and bragging about it or paying Stormy off for giving him a quick roll in the sack?

Personal morality is one thing. But we have an expectation of the morality we place upon our elected leaders. Call it public morality....the values that guide our nation's leader.

[Unregistered]

Oh, I think the nature of the person and his or her personal morality has to play a large part in the selection of our President. And if it didn't matter, why all the fuss about Clinton and Lewinsky or Donald grabbing pussy and bragging about it or paying Stormy off for giving him a quick roll in the sack?

Personal morality is one thing. But we have an expectation of the morality we place upon our elected leaders. Call it public morality....the values that guide our nation's leader.

Morality is still subjective. Everyone has a different line where things become immoral, so it's not for anyone to push that onto others. You have a line, and when someone crosses it you deal with it yourself. Vote accordingly.

My line may be in a different place, and I'll do the same.

[Unregistered]

Of course he did.

That is what was expected of him by the American people.

He also showed us his tax returns. To be honest, Republican or Democrat, all have given up their private business interests while serving the nation. They all showed us their taxes too.


Until Donald come into office. Again, when you have no moral compass.......

" To be honest, Republican or Democrat, all have given up their private business interests while serving the nation. "


Really ? How much research have you done to back up your opinion ? How many " Republicans and Democrats " have you looked at?

The IRS has Trump's tax Returns. If there was anything illegal in it, do you think he would have been charged by now after decades and decades of filing? What Law has he broken by not publishing it ?



Charles A Beard’s 1913 thesis stated that the arguments between the different political groups over the formation of the Constitution reflected conflicts between economic groups and that these groups were shaped in different ways by the adoption of the Constitution. This pragmatic economic view of the motivations of the Founding Fathers was accepted until the 1950s. He states that “merchants, money lenders, security holders, manufacturers, shippers, capitalists, and financiers” were likely supporters, while “farmers and debtors” were likely opponents.[1] He argues that the Founders were not patriots blindly acting on ideals, but rather that they were in pursuit of economic interests.

In the 1950’s this pragmatic theory fell out of favor and was usurped by idealistic theories. These theories focused on the ideological beliefs of the Founders over their real world motivations. One of the key historians credited with debunking Beard was Forrest McDonald. McDonald looked at statistical data of voting records at the Constitutional Convention and found that public securities holders were not in fact more likely to support the Constitution as Beard asserted. These men would have had a great deal to gain financially from the Constitution, yet they did not support its creation. McDonald holds that this proves the Founders were motivated by ideologies and not economics. The culture of the 1950’s when McDonald wrote also helped to spur the legitimacy of his claims. The realism of mass media sought out infallible and one dimensional characters for mass consumption.[2] This reading of the history of the Constitution was much more favorable to the intellectual pallets of Americans than the pre World War One theories of the guiding powers of the economy presented by Beard.

In the article “Economic Interests and the American Constitution: A Quantitative Rehabilitation of Charles A. Beard” Robert McGuire and Robert Ohsfeldt resurrect the theories of Beard. They reexamine the statistical data collected by McDonald and reach dramatically different conclusions. McGuire and Ohsfeldt hold that it was in fact economic interests which shaped the ways in which the Founding Father’s voted. They take the exploration of statistics to include both the Constitutional Convention and the subsequent state ratifying conventions and found that delegates do in fact vote along economic lines. On the national level at the Constitutional Convention, among other groups, private securities holders were much more pro national, whereas slave owners were much more anti national.[3] On the national level holding public securities, the economic trait which McDonald used to debunk Beard’s theory, had no affect on voting. This is because it represented too small a portion of the average Founder’s portfolio. However, on the state level all economic interests played a role in voting habits and in addition to repeating the characteristics of the voters on the national level, those who held any amount of public securities were pro Constitution, again hurting McDonald’s thesis

[Unregistered]

Oh, I think the nature of the person and his or her personal morality has to play a large part in the selection of our President. And if it didn't matter, why all the fuss about Clinton and Lewinsky or Donald grabbing pussy and bragging about it or paying Stormy off for giving him a quick roll in the sack?

Personal morality is one thing. But we have an expectation of the morality we place upon our elected leaders. Call it public morality....the values that guide our nation's leader.

" why all the fuss"
Because it is gossip , and " News" has become Entertainment with graphics, , elaborate sets, music . smiling talking Heads , shows like " The View" which are modern day versions of the dialogue that went on a century ago before washing machines ,and wash women had nothing to talk about while the waited for the clothes to dry.

" public morality " And that is part of the problem. The media projects their " morality " on the viewers , and because of their power , dominates the conversation. Morality is an individual decision.

[Unregistered]

And when you look in the mirror, just as I suggested to the other poster, you will find you are pretty much his twin.

Your whole mission here seems to be to denigrate anyone who has a conservative perspective or supports Trump.

I'm no fan of his myself, but your mind, just as much as the fellow you are debating here, is as closed as his and does nothing to help us work through this dangerous time in our nation.

The first step to making things better is to stop stabbing each other with knives, verbal or real.

Trump is the current President right?
So why would I post about Obama, Bush 2, Clinton , Bush1, Reagan or Carter in 2018.
If TS was active and social media was the place to be and (and) (and) wait for it .... Obama was so divisive then TS up until last year would have had a “ Merry Christmas Barack Obama” thread.
But the fact is , Obama was NOT a big mouthed racist hating pig like DT is. So blame it on him for bringing the freaks to his Administration and blame it on him for dividing the country.

[Unregistered]

Trump is the current President right?
So why would I post about Obama, Bush 2, Clinton , Bush1, Reagan or Carter in 2018.
If TS was active and social media was the place to be and (and) (and) wait for it .... Obama was so divisive then TS up until last year would have had a “ Merry Christmas Barack Obama” thread.
But the fact is , Obama was NOT a big mouthed racist hating pig like DT is. So blame it on him for bringing the freaks to his Administration and blame it on him for dividing the country.

Because you are sensitive explains why there is a thread today, and wasn't about previous administrations. You actually explained why in your post.

Let me ask you two questions:

1) Should women only vote for women?
2) Should blacks only vote for blacks?

If your answers are yes, you are sexist and racist. If you say no, they you disagree with your previous administration, and the loser of the last election, who feel otherwise (yes, that makes them racist and sexist for saying that).

So, answer away please.

[Unregistered]

Because you are sensitive explains why there is a thread today, and wasn't about previous administrations. You actually explained why in your post.

Let me ask you two questions:

1) Should women only vote for women?
2) Should blacks only vote for blacks?

If your answers are yes, you are sexist and racist. If you say no, they you disagree with your previous administration, and the loser of the last election, who feel otherwise (yes, that makes them racist and sexist for saying that).

So, answer away please.

If you agree with the direction of the affordable care act and would like to see it strengthened and improved, if you do not want conservative justices appointed to the supreme court, if you do not want to see Roe V. Wade overturned, if you want less of your tax money spent on defense and zero spent on a big concrete wall on the southern border, you should not be voting for DT no matter what color or gender he is.

The pussy grabbing, cheating on wife home with new baby, paying off porn stars, insulting gold star moms, and courting of ugly racist birther conspirators does make the choice even more clear i will add.

If you believe that the health care system in this country is a mess and that is a mojor issue by which you vote and you side more with HRC's approach ot healthcare then DT's

[Unregistered]

Corrected last sentence.

If you agree with the direction of the affordable care act and would like to see it strengthened and improved, if you do not want conservative justices appointed to the supreme court, if you do not want to see Roe V. Wade overturned, if you want less of your tax money spent on defense and zero spent on a big concrete wall on the southern border, you should not be voting for DT no matter what color or gender he is.

The pussy grabbing, cheating on wife home with new baby, paying off porn stars, insulting gold star moms, and courting of ugly racist birther conspirators does make the choice even more clear i will add.

If you believe that the health care system in this country is a mess and that is a major issue by which you vote and you side more with HRC's approach to healthcare then DT's, dont vote for DT.

[Unregistered]

Mostly good reasons for voting.

But, you didn't answer the questions. A simple yes and/or no will do.