What Trump brings to the game is that he does not “act” like a politician. He does not hold back. He tells it like it is unlike the current POTUS whose reference to ISIS (he calls it ISIL) as JV’s should go down in history. There are too many elected officials in DC right now and they hold back way too much and rarely tell it like it is. Dem’s are tied to political correctness and that term alone is an oxymoron.
The expressions on Trumps face alone tell you more than what some politicians are thinking and hold back on. Hypocrites have ruled DC for way too long. Like Trump or not he does not skirt issues and the bottom line is he wants to make this country great again. No way he would have made that deal with Iran and I guarantee you all prisoners in Iran would have been released after taking office as opposed to Obama who trades a traitor for enemy leaders.
I am not saying Trump is flawless but who in DC is. They all have agendas and getting re-elected is their main goal. Had he been Sec of State or President there is no way Benghazi would have happened as it did. I don’t think he would ever attach his name to a new Medical plan like Obama. In fact he is the exact opposite of Obama and that is exactly would this country needs at this point and time.
The expressions on Trumps face alone tell you more than what some politicians are thinking and hold back on. Hypocrites have ruled DC for way too long. Like Trump or not he does not skirt issues and the bottom line is he wants to make this country great again. No way he would have made that deal with Iran and I guarantee you all prisoners in Iran would have been released after taking office as opposed to Obama who trades a traitor for enemy leaders.
I am not saying Trump is flawless but who in DC is. They all have agendas and getting re-elected is their main goal. Had he been Sec of State or President there is no way Benghazi would have happened as it did. I don’t think he would ever attach his name to a new Medical plan like Obama. In fact he is the exact opposite of Obama and that is exactly would this country needs at this point and time.
When FDR took over, Democrats controlled 64% of the Senate and 73% of the House seats. By the time he left office, they controlled 80% in both chambers! Democrats also enjoyed massive majorities with LBJ from 1965-1966, and it was during that very brief period when they rammed through their massive "Great Society" programs that are currently bankrupting the country.
Compare that type of grip on power when Obama had 59% in both chambers for less than two years, but even there Dems took full advantage attempting to "fundamentally transform" America.
Republicans have NEVER enjoyed that type of power.
My point is, the vast majority of damage occurred during very brief moments in time and that ongoing damage is locked in and impossible to change/reform until the entire system collapses.
When (not if) the system collapses, maybe Republicans will control Congress and/or the executive branch or maybe not.
It doesn't matter. Democrats deserve 100% of the blame.
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".[
Your welcome. It just so happens that Obama is friends with both of these folks....shocking huh.
It is what it is.
Democrat programs are bankrupting the country, not Republican programs. Democrat programs are "locked in" with no reform in sight. Obamacare is just another nail in the coffin.
"Mandatory" vs "discretionary" spending - can you imagine running a business this way? face)(*^% Only in Progressive-ville.
18 trillion in debt means the "voices of sanity" were abandoned a long time ago. Anyone who refuses to go along to get along and accept the status-quo is labeled a "radical" and demagogued off the stage.
Want to protect yourself against this left wing insanity when reality hits the fan?
Buy lots of GOLD and arm yourself to the teeth with MASSIVE FIREPOWER - what every sane Americans is doing. Oh, wait a minute...
'Progressives' don't think you have any right to keep and bear arms, either and are working around the clock looking for legal 'loopholes' (creative "constitutional interpretations") to take away that right away from you as well!
:neenee:
Well, I'm trying to be civil.
"From1995-2007(12 years) Republicans held total control of both House and Senate for 10 of those years. And Bush was President for 4 of those years, so yes, they had opportunities. Let me ask this, did they even try?"
This statement is meaningless because...
If a party doesn't control ALL branches of government along with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the type of necessary changes you are advocating WILL NOT HAPPEN!
Did Republicans try? What does that even mean? Of course they tried!
Bush proposes overhaul of Social Security, Medicare
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7701...sh-proposes-overhaul-social-security-medicare
Like Scott L trying to reason with certain posters in here, predictably those efforts went NOWHERE.
As I stated previously, 18 trillion in debt with no end in sight makes "bipartisanship" a pipe dream - unless your idea of "bipartisanship" is colluding with the party mostly responsible for this mess and thereby compounding the problem: Big Government!
If what you say is true, then how can they repeal ACA? My understanding is if a Republican gets in the Oval Office next year the first thing done will be get rid of ACA. If they can't fix a program that hasn't worked in 50 years, how can they fix one that's only been around a few years without the majority you speak of?Well, I'm trying to be civil.
"From1995-2007(12 years) Republicans held total control of both House and Senate for 10 of those years. And Bush was President for 4 of those years, so yes, they had opportunities. Let me ask this, did they even try?"
This statement is meaningless because...
If a party doesn't control ALL branches of government along with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the type of necessary changes you are advocating WILL NOT HAPPEN!
Did Republicans try? What does that even mean? Of course they tried!
Bush proposes overhaul of Social Security, Medicare
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7701...sh-proposes-overhaul-social-security-medicare
Like Scott L trying to reason with certain posters in here, predictably those efforts went NOWHERE.
As I stated previously, 18 trillion in debt with no end in sight makes "bipartisanship" a pipe dream - unless your idea of "bipartisanship" is colluding with the party mostly responsible for this mess and thereby compounding the problem: Big Government!
Also, Jeb Bush proposing something as part of his campaign is not Republicans in Congress trying to do something.Well, I'm trying to be civil.
"From1995-2007(12 years) Republicans held total control of both House and Senate for 10 of those years. And Bush was President for 4 of those years, so yes, they had opportunities. Let me ask this, did they even try?"
This statement is meaningless because...
If a party doesn't control ALL branches of government along with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the type of necessary changes you are advocating WILL NOT HAPPEN!
Did Republicans try? What does that even mean? Of course they tried!
Bush proposes overhaul of Social Security, Medicare
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7701...sh-proposes-overhaul-social-security-medicare
Like Scott L trying to reason with certain posters in here, predictably those efforts went NOWHERE.
As I stated previously, 18 trillion in debt with no end in sight makes "bipartisanship" a pipe dream - unless your idea of "bipartisanship" is colluding with the party mostly responsible for this mess and thereby compounding the problem: Big Government!
