Donald Trump's First 100 Days as President

**usmccharles** · 08-01-2017, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by JohnBKistler

When I identify as a libertarian, it is not a political party identification, but rather a social and economic identification. I couldn't even tell you who are the political leaders of the Libertarian (capital L) party or their party platform. In the past, I have supported politicians from across the spectrum if they have espoused libertarian principles. I think you are mistaken in assuming that just because someone identifies as a liberal or libertarian or conservative, that they are in lock-step agreement with that political party and the inference that there is no room for compromise or common ground.

My mistake, i wasnt clear enough. I didnt mean to imply what i said pertains to everyone, i am guilty of one of my biggest pet peeves as using a definitive word to sum up a group. Most of us on here seem pretty open minded where its not an issue to categorize one as all, I just get annoyed when some people say: I could never date/be friends etc with (insert said person's opposite party affiliation). That was my fault for not being clear.

I honestly dont even know what i would identify as, I however did vote for Gary Johnson. Like you said, i didnt agree with everything he stood for, but more him than the other pieces of work.

**wickedsolo** · 08-01-2017, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by JohnBKistler

When I identify as a libertarian, it is not a political party identification, but rather a social and economic identification. I couldn't even tell you who are the political leaders of the Libertarian (capital L) party or their party platform. In the past, I have supported politicians from across the spectrum if they have espoused libertarian principles. I think you are mistaken in assuming that just because someone identifies as a liberal or libertarian or conservative, that they are in lock-step agreement with that political party and the inference that there is no room for compromise or common ground.

Good post.

At this point, im kind of borderline anarchist, at least in terms of a centralized federal government. They do nothing. They can't get anything right when they try and get something accomplished. They're by and large poor representations of their constituents. A large majority of them are crooked, greedy, and self-serving.

I mean, what's the point anymore?

I'd rather reset the whole thing and go back to states being the primary holders of power.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

**Ortizer** · 08-01-2017, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Good post.

At this point, im kind of borderline anarchist, at least in terms of a centralized federal government. They do nothing. They can't get anything right when they try and get something accomplished. They're by and large poor representations of their constituents. A large majority of them are crooked, greedy, and self-serving.

I mean, what's the point anymore?

I'd rather reset the whole thing and go back to states being the primary holders of power.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's what it's supposed to be anyways... It's shocking how much of a power grab the federal government has gotten way with relative to the constitution

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

**usmccharles** · 08-02-2017, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Good post.

At this point, im kind of borderline anarchist, at least in terms of a centralized federal government. They do nothing. They can't get anything right when they try and get something accomplished. They're by and large poor representations of their constituents. A large majority of them are crooked, greedy, and self-serving.

I mean, what's the point anymore?

I'd rather reset the whole thing and go back to states being the primary holders of power.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It seems everyone wants to do just enough to keep their job and that's it. Also, term limits for congress would be a great way to get more proactive production, if someone knows they only have 8 years, they are more inclined to go out on a limb for something they care about rather than continue to scratch each other's balls

**Dirt1** · 08-02-2017, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by usmccharles

It seems everyone wants to do just enough to keep their job and that's it. Also, term limits for congress would be a great way to get more proactive production, if someone knows they only have 8 years, they are more inclined to go out on a limb for something they care about rather than continue to scratch each other's balls

I am all for term limits for members of Congress, but I would set it at 12 years. So, 2 terms for Senators and 6 terms for members of the House.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**GreatWhiteNorthRaven** · 08-02-2017, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Good post.

At this point, im kind of borderline anarchist, at least in terms of a centralized federal government. They do nothing. They can't get anything right when they try and get something accomplished. They're by and large poor representations of their constituents. A large majority of them are crooked, greedy, and self-serving.

I mean, what's the point anymore?

I'd rather reset the whole thing and go back to states being the primary holders of power.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In a lot of ways that's the way they constitution in Canada works. The federal government is a funding agent and does do policy work in the federal role, but the provinces deliver services for health care and education for example.

When it comes ot health care if the feds try and influence how the provinces do their business the provinces basically tell them to piss off, give them their money and let them handle it.

Is education delivered by the state or federally in the US?

**wickedsolo** · 08-02-2017, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteNorthRaven

In a lot of ways that's the way they constitution in Canada works. The federal government is a funding agent and does do policy work in the federal role, but the provinces deliver services for health care and education for example.

When it comes ot health care if the feds try and influence how the provinces do their business the provinces basically tell them to piss off, give them their money and let them handle it.

Is education delivered by the state or federally in the US?

By the state, but it receives federal funding for nationalized testing. I think that's how it works.

Darb may be a better person to ask.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**GreatWhiteNorthRaven** · 08-02-2017, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

By the state, but it receives federal funding for nationalized testing. I think that's how it works.

Darb may be a better person to ask.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I've noticed anything workingnfor a federal government its that they really shouldn't be running things that are delivered small scale.

For example, federal approaches to health care don't make sense to me. It's different in each jurisdiction and the federal government just wouldn't know that. Serving as a funding agent and carving out their own role for maybe specific program delivery or innovations sure but to deliver health care and make decisions on community level stuff. Just doesn't make sense

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**JohnBKistler** · 08-02-2017, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Ortizer

That's what it's supposed to be anyways... It's shocking how much of a power grab the federal government has gotten way with relative to the constitution.

Part of the problem is that, in the name of party politics, the Senators and Representatives and Judges have forgotten that their number one job is to uphold the balance of power spelled out in the constitution (it is an oath of "office", not on oath of "party"). Instead of Red vs. Blue, there should be much more Senate (deliberating big policy issues) vs. House (deliberating the issues that are first and foremost on the minds of the voters) vs. President (you execute the laws we pass, nothing more and nothing less) vs. Judiciary (impartial referee and protector of constitutional rights - all rights - not an unelected legislator reading stuff into laws that are not there).

During the Obama years, the Democrats ceded way too much of their constitutional power to Obama. The Republicans are doing the same with Trump. That is bad for the country.

**wickedsolo** · 08-02-2017, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by JohnBKistler

Part of the problem is that, in the name of party politics, the Senators and Representatives and Judges have forgotten that their number one job is to uphold the balance of power spelled out in the constitution (it is an oath of "office", not on oath of "party"). Instead of Red vs. Blue, there should be much more Senate (deliberating big policy issues) vs. House (deliberating the issues that are first and foremost on the minds of the voters) vs. President (you execute the laws we pass, nothing more and nothing less) vs. Judiciary (impartial referee and protector of constitutional rights - all rights - not an unelected legislator reading stuff into laws that are not there).

During the Obama years, the Democrats ceded way too much of their constitutional power to Obama. The Republicans are doing the same with Trump. That is bad for the country.

It's been a steady secession of power for decades.

**usmccharles** · 08-03-2017, 08:05 AM

Nothing to do with the thread title...maybe ill make a thread dedicated for this shit

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/29...-language.html

**GreatWhiteNorthRaven** · 08-03-2017, 02:07 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.08757c60ff4c

Quite the read.

Basically - Mexico isn't paying for the wall, but Trump doesn't want Nieto saying that lol. What a guy