[derhundistlos]

"Then you have democrats that won't say it should be illegal to kill a viable fetus or possibly even wack a baby that lived through a botched abortion."

Please show us where in the Democratic Party platform these positions are the official party position.

[Cog]

I keep seeing pictures of the American President wearing MAGA caps....does the fact the he is still wearing that slogan mean he has not been successful so far, and is still wishing for it to happen ?

It means it is a long process to reverse the evils of democratic socialism that your buddies the Dems have installed.

[Cog]

"Then you have democrats that won't say it should be illegal to kill a viable fetus or possibly even wack a baby that lived through a botched abortion."

Please show us where in the Democratic Party platform these positions are the official party position.

It hardly matters if it's an official party position if all the candidates are pro late term abortion. Dems love abortion as a holy sacrament and especially if the babies killed are black. Read Sanger's comments on eugenics and abortion.

[wildbourgman]

"Then you have democrats that won't say it should be illegal to kill a viable fetus or possibly even wack a baby that lived through a botched abortion."

Please show us where in the Democratic Party platform these positions are the official party position.

It hardly matters if it's an official party position if all the candidates are pro late term abortion. Dems love abortion as a holy sacrament and especially if the babies killed are black. Read Sanger's comments on eugenics and abortion.

I totally agree Cog. What party actually governs according to its party platform? That comment was either disingenuous or naïve.

[KaiserJeep]

Of course, neither party governs according to it's nominal political platform. Ideology is something to get fools to vote for the party, not something that you actually use. Once in office, you get on with the serious business of quid-pro-quo legislation, dirty politics, and the partisan dance moves that divert attention from your criminal activity.

The only really surprising thing is that so many voters continue to be obsessed with political ideology. You might have noticed that when somebody like for example Ross Perot - who had a real chance of making a difference by acting on his beliefs - gets too close to power, both major parties can agree about shooting silent running torpedoes until they sink the naive challenger in a froth of publicity.

Trump of course is not a participant in the great partisan dance of fleecing the taxpayers. He already had as much money as he wished - making him a threat everybody could agree upon. Then he demonstrated that the modern exercise of politics had more to do with the electronic social media than with passive, entirely obsolete one-directional broadcast media.

That's too much difference. It's disturbing to those that thought they understood the path to power and wealth. Now AOC is preparing to "school" Trump on how things are done using social media as your tools to power.

Yeah, that'll work.

[wildbourgman]

KaiserJeep, lets see if we have a third party candidate actually win a few states and cause the leading candidate to not reach 270 electoral votes. If that happened in 2020 the house just might appoint Hillary president. OMG!

[KaiserJeep]

Interesting thoughts but the House cannot appoint just anybody - they have to pick from the successful candidates who qualified to be in the runoff by being in the requisite number of state elections.

Unless I am very much mistaken, HRC is entirely dead as a candidate. So is Bernie Sanders, although he will run again and split the party again and thus ensure Trump gets a second term. The whole problem with the D's now is the wide range of ideology. Everybody from Bernie on the Left to RINO's who are hiding in plain sight as R's. You just cannot win that way, not any more, your party bickers and eats itself.

This is the continuing legacy of the JFK/RFK "Camelot" reforms of the late 1950's. The K's both made the modern D party and later broke it. But it really, really needed to be broken both times.

[evilgenius]

It looks to me like Trump has done one thing that no other president has been able to do, influence the Fed. He's used the power of tariffs to bring the economy to a point where he can get that rate cut be berated his Fed Chairman over. After realizing just how powerful the Fed Chair was, he went around him. It remains to be seen if that amounts to opening Pandora's box. I still think the end game of what Trump is doing will wind up in American isolationism separating the US from not only Europe, but the rest of the modern world that is developing. It looks like the US will still bizarrely dominate that situation, while engendering a distrust and dislike among its members.

[marmico]

Meanwhile, Trump's economy is way stronger than Obama's was.

I suggest that you make an appointment with an optometrist and take the prescription to an optician for corrective lenses. The GDP, payrolls, corporate profits charts posted upthread are a continuation trend, neither stronger nor weaker.

Ben Stein should stick to his shtick stock in trade - namely, comedy.

[wildbourgman]

="KaiserJeep"]Interesting thoughts but the House cannot appoint just anybody - they have to pick from the successful candidates who qualified to be in the runoff by being in the requisite number of state elections.

Kaiser I sure hope your right, but I distinctly remember it being said in the 2016 election that the House could possibly pick Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney, because of the law being that it didn't have to be a choice of an actual candidate. I'm going to have to research that some more.

then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President

Ok I see, I wonder what the scenario was that the talking heads were discussing Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush or Romney getting the presidency in 2016. I certainly remember it.

[derhundistlos]

The most ironic part about Republicans who like to display their patriotic bona fides for all to see is their man, Trump, is a COWARD and a TRAITOR.

Trump and I both attended New York Military Academy, Cornwall on Hudson, NY. First, he was just as condescending and arrogant a rube then as he is today. He loved to arrive late on Sundays so all the cadets would see that he was being driven in a chauffeured limousine.

Worst of all, Trump made sure daddy paid off the right people so he would not be sent to Vietnam. He used multiple fake medical deferments to avoid military service (as with Dick Cheney). As Trump likes to say, “his time was better spent grabbing pussy in NYC”. This is the same phony who loves to hug the American flag while cameras are rolling. Coward Trump is the only member of our graduating class to shirk military service. No wonder he dares not show his face at class reunions.

One would think with all the Republican flag waving and calls to patriotism, Trump would have been immediately disqualified, but no. Principles, character, honesty, the truth, none of this matters to the Grand Old Party of Hypocrisy. All that matters to these people is winning, power and money PERIOD. All the talk about family values, patriotism, God & country, etc. is nothing but a fraud meant to assuage the morally bankrupt conscience of low information voters.

[Cog]

Sorry your girl, the super patriot and Navy Seal lost.

[KaiserJeep]

Look derhundistlos, I don't know if you believe the nonsense you just spouted or not. However you definately do not display an insider's knowledge of Trump. The entire press corps investigated his military deferments. They found that he had multiple student deferments. That means that he registered for the draft and passed the original physical examination and was found fit for service. Then he was given as many annual student deferments as he applied for, which was the way things worked for him and for you and for me, until graduation. Then he was granted a single medical deferment for bone spurs, which would have been caused by the cumulative damage from marching on paved surfaces for a few years to somebody vulnerable to that condition. I know this because I myself developed bone spurs in my mid-30's from exercising on paved sidewalks.

I am a Vietnam Era Veteran. After applying for and getting two years of student deferments, and going $16K into debt, I volunteered for combat, but where my electronics skills were needed (I was an EE major) was in Alaska near the Arctic Circle, working on a 2 megawatt pulse transmitter (i.e. LORAN-C). This was a navigation system that was part of a strategic weapons system, used by both USAF bombers and by USN missile submarines under the polar ice. So that is where I served, that and (after additional training) on Nantucket Island, a place I had never heard of before. The reason it is called "Service" is because you end up doing a job that the government needs to have done. You don't get to choose what that is, where you do it, or who you do it with. The usual case is that you end up serving in a place you would otherwise not have chosen, and doing tasks you would otherwise have never chosen to do, in the company of people you would also never have chosen to be around. Which pretty much describes what happened to me.

I cannot speak for you or for Trump - and personally I don't particularly like him, either. YOU I am rapidly developing an opinion about because you have just played fast and loose with the truth, and appear to be one of the crowd that is blinded by political ideology - which is a foolish thing to be preoccupied with, since it plays no actual role in government, other than in the election itself.

If you want any respect around here at Peak Oil.com, then admit to us and to yourself what your real agenda is. I personally don't care for Trump. He is brash, rude, a serial verbal abuser of women, greedy and arrogant. However he has been the best thing for the US economy in decades, and (as they still say) "It's the Economy, stupid."

Most of all - and you should know this if you actually served - you NEVER lie or embellish your military service, or the service of others, because that dishonors you. Student deferments and a medical deferment do not constitute avoiding military service, even if the person you are smearing is not in the political party you favor.

[GHung]

........

I personally don't care for Trump. He is brash, rude, a serial verbal abuser of women, greedy and arrogant. .........

Not to mention a narcissistic pathological liar. BTW: I overcame a physical problem (appealed for a waiver) to serve. It was that important to me. There are plenty of jobs Trump could have done with his "bone spurs". But keep making excuses for the guy. Says a lot.
As for the economy, Trump inherited an economy on the upswing, cut taxes (increasing the debt even more) and takes full credit for that. Our Grandkids will be stuck with the check. Trump is famous for that sort of thing.

[KaiserJeep]

Recognizably, you are yet another person blinded by ideology. I can find merit in D's or R's or even oddballs like Ross Perot. Recognizing merit does not blind you to faults - nor does it imply that you need to overlook blatant faults because somebody is a member of "your" party - because rank and smelly partisanship is what causes those things.

Be honest about yourself with yourself. Others will then recognize integrity. Of course, you have the right to be as partisan as you wish - and the right to be blinded by partisanship, of course. However, if you cannot recognize your own faults, you should not reasonably expect to truly understand others.

Thank you for your service. Military service is a tradition in my family, a career for some, such as my father and two sisters.

[GHung]

Recognizably, you are yet another person blinded by ideology. I can find merit in D's or R's or even oddballs like Ross Perot. Recognizing merit does not blind you to faults - nor does it imply that you need to overlook blatant faults because somebody is a member of "your" party - because rank and smelly partisanship is what causes those things.

Be honest about yourself with yourself. Others will then recognize integrity. Of course, you have the right to be as partisan as you wish - and the right to be blinded by partisanship, of course. However, if you cannot recognize your own faults, you should not reasonably expect to truly understand others.

Thank you for your service. Military service is a tradition in my family, a career for some, such as my father and two sisters.

Typical KJ assumptions. I belong to no political party nor do I endorse any political movement. I do not participate in any organized religion. Indeed, you'll find few people who are as pragmatic and non-ideological as am I. That said, I consider honesty and good character as necessary traits for good leadership. That absolutely does NOT describe your current president. Further, those who are willing to overlook Trump's dangerous flaws solely because their economy is doing well, while at the same time calling out his greed, cause me to take pause, especially those who are economically well off as you seem to be.

Donald Trump could gift me a million dollars tomorrow and I would still call him exactly what he is; an utterly self-serving narcissistic pathological liar who thinks his oath of office is an inconvenient joke.. These are facts; not "ideology". I apply those standards to everyone, especially those on my payroll.

[KaiserJeep]

You as a US citizen have obligations, although you seem to have forgotten yours. As a reminder, silently in your mind recite the Pledge of Allegence, and note what the words mean.

Now recall your Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment. Note what those words mean. Specificly they obligate you to obey the orders of the POTUS. Finishing your enlistment term contract did not release you from that oath.

Think about it. He has the office, even if he is not "your" guy, or mine.

[GHung]

You as a US citizen have obligations, although you seem to have forgotten yours. As a reminder, silently in your mind recite the Pledge of Allegence, and note what the words mean.

Now recall your Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment. Note what those words mean. Specificly they obligate you to obey the orders of the POTUS. Finishing your enlistment term contract did not release you from that oath.

Think about it. He has the office, even if he is not "your" guy, or mine.

The Pledge of Allegiance is an ideological recitation that most take because they are expected to. It carries no official or legal designation under the Constitution. It says nothing at all about the President.

As for the Oath I took, I take it seriously, especially the part about all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. To clarify, I swore to uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. Please show me where, as a private citizen, I am legally bound to support any office holder, including the President or his policies. Again. Show me where, under US law, I am bound to support this President. Indeed, the founding fathers were careful to ensure that this is a nation of LAWS; not loyalty or service to any individual, including POTUS. It's disturbing that so many US citizens don't seem to understand the difference.

While on active duty I was legally bound to follow all orders of my chain of command, as defined in the UCMJ, except where those orders are unlawful. This, of course, included the Commander-in-Chief. As a private citizen, I am no longer bound by the UCMJ.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

[Outcast_Searcher]

"Then you have democrats that won't say it should be illegal to kill a viable fetus or possibly even wack a baby that lived through a botched abortion."

Please show us where in the Democratic Party platform these positions are the official party position.

It hardly matters if it's an official party position if all the candidates are pro late term abortion. Dems love abortion as a holy sacrament and especially if the babies killed are black. Read Sanger's comments on eugenics and abortion.

Calling supporting the right to choose "loving abortion" isn't credible to a rational audience.

[Cog]

Calling abortion anything other than murder of an unwanted baby is not rational or accurate. Is the value of a human life based on whether a mother wants it or not? Or does the baby have a value independent of the mother's values and wishes? Why can you be charged with a double murder for killing a pregnant woman? Thirty eight states have fetal homicide enhancement penalties to murdering a pregnant woman. Why would that be?