He's strong on the east side. Biggest surprise is Oregon...
Being the CEO of a world-class business for several decades grants you more executive experience than basically anything else.
People that pretend otherwise probably haven't participated in any business affair beyond the cash register.
Yep. 1 example is consistency of ideas, like in the midst of the Obama administration Trump said that Hillary would be a great Secretary of State but now she's the worst thing since Arsenic and is solely responsible for any number of problems Trump can think up off the top of his head.
And the role of CEO is based on maximizing shareholder value, there are many decisions a head of state makes that are both expensive and worthless when it comes to generating profit. Except under anarcho-capitalism and/or fascism.
Well, I'm not against that. The state should be in the business of defending the rights it guarantees. The second amendment is unambiguous. Any reasonable gun control measures need to start with repealing the second amendment. Anything less is just a way of keeping the ball in play so ultra-rich people can score political points and the gun industry can keep making money in the domestic market. Nearly all shootings in the US literally ever were from legally obtained guns. Take away the average person's right to own a gun and you're left with most gun crime being criminals shooting at each other. If you could wave a magic wand and take away all guns from all law abiding citizens, the average person wouldn't be in any more danger from criminals, that's fallacious. They would, however, be in a lot less danger from other average people with guns.
Says you, right?
Being the successful head of anything revolves around good decision making and delegation skills, which is the backbone of executive experience, hence being the chief EXECUTIVE officer of the company.
Fucking morons, I swear.
>But the freedom also opened the door for political mischief, as Colorado saw in 2012 when Ron Paul supporters managed to win a significant portion of the delegate slots, even though Paul finished far behind other candidates in the Colorado caucuses.
The GOP really went on a scorched Earth campaign against Ron, didn't they?
Too bad they were proven to be a bunch of cucks when Trump ran.
Just wait until you see what theyre going to do this time.
Remember that when they say it's going to be a "brokered" convention, that there haven't been any true party brokers since the turn of the 20th century.
tl;dr there is no way Trump can win unless he pays for hitmen to assassinate Reince Priebus.
>Literally the weakest candidate for president in the last decades
>Losing to anyone that isn't Yeb
She's going to be crushed so badly it's going to fracture the Democrat party.
I don't think people realize that the moderate protectionist policies of Trump were those of the Democrats prior to whatever they've become now, and he's going to steal all those angry Democrat workers that have been ignored for the last 2-3 decades and use them to beat the Democrats to death.
It's gonna be great.
>The electorate is about to change and give Trump a landslide victory as a result
>"Hurr durr you're are wrong because this theory that depends completely on past voting trends never changing says you are"
Epic dude, surely things that have happened will continue to happen despite the critical underlying foundations shifting in the opposite direction.
Please go to China and donate heavily to genetic modification so your children aren't cursed with Sub Saharan Africa-tier IQ.
>despite the critical underlying foundations shifting in the opposite direction.
>mfw you actually believe this
Oh yeah, that definitely still means something... Except that in the last 2 election cycles Democrats got destroyed. Did you notice that in 2010 Democrats lost the House to Republicans.Or that in 2014 Democrats lost the Senate to Republicans. It seems like the only Republican even capable of losing is Romney. In fact, Since Obama took office Democrats have lost:
14 Senate seats
69 House seats
910 state legislature seats
That’s over 1,000 seats lost, Obama has made his party a joke. Now look at it logically. If somehow it's Trump he would take the New York Electoral vote as his home state. That's 29 votes. It looks like Florida is going republican this cycle, that's another 29, we can already call California's 55 null. Add in the guarantee of Texas and it's 38 and the republicans don't even need to gain new ground, it's a lock. The blue wall means jack shit this cycle.
That's my point, they're all old white boomers who aren't "shifting" anything.
>that in the last 2 election cycles Democrats got destroyed
Not in the last Presidential election which is the only elected thing Karl Rove can't gerrymander. Did you even read the Blue Wall article? The math is simply against the GOP, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to win.
Romney had the opposite problem as Trump does.
Romney was too much of a RINO moderate too far to the left for the general.
Trump is too much of a partisan ideologue/demagogue too far to the right for the general.
I suspect that is why Trump gets so much traction. We seem to keep delving farther into one extreme then the other trying to right the ship from our last mistake. From extreme left Clinton, to whacked out neo-con Bush, to downright socialist Obama to what? Trump? Cruz? It's the logical next step isn't it? Both parties know it too, they don't even bother presenting anyone remotely compromising and rational anymore.
The GOP controls the vast majority of the statehouses, who decide their own congressional district boundaries and don't have to wait 10 years for the census anymore thanks to a Bush-era supreme court ruling.
Whatever your idea of "far right" is, I have to inform you that you're crazy stupid for thinking it applies to Trump.
The Republican platform is about freedom, such as freedom of movement and freedom of trade, Trump is against both those things, which the Democrats were a generation ago before they realized they could pander to illiterate niggers and hysterical women and still win elections.
Trump is taking up the original banner of the Democrat party and running on a protectionist platform to keep wealth in this country and ensure all/most Americans can find work without dealing with globalism and rampant immigration.
So to imply he's far right on anything, which I don't think anyone even understands what that means because it's another political buzzword designed to sound scary and brand people with a label nobody knows the meaning of, is wrong, and you are gay.
Democrats didn't get blown out in record numbers. The Tea Party only supplanted the Blue Dog Deomcrats who voted conservative anyway. It sounds like you've been listening to the cheerleaders who turn politics into a sports event.
This is hilarious, although I have to admire your earnest idealism. Tell it to Ron Paul, kid. Do you think he thinks the Republican Party Platform is about "freedom" after what happened to him at the last convention?
>which the Democrats were a generation ago before they realized they could pander to illiterate niggers and hysterical women and still win elections.
It happened the opposite of the way you describe. The former 1960s Dixiecrats all became Republicans in the 70s and 80s so they could pander to their old, white, racist, southern constituencies or risk getting thrown out (like what ended up happening anyway in 2010 with the Tea Party).
I'm not saying anything in favor of the Republican party, I'm explaining you the differentiation of the right and left, ideally, not what they do in practice.
Also, Trump is basically the revenge of Ron Paul, as much as he would hate to ever admit it. Trump is the guy that nobody can ignore the way they did Ron, so if you want the establishment to suck and die in record numbers, then back Trump and pick up the pieces afterwards.
Yes they did, they got crushed in the vast majority of elections held, so they got BTFO.
>Yes they did, they got crushed in the vast majority of elections held, so they got BTFO.
Please learn what blue dog is. Please?
>Trump is basically the revenge of Ron Paul, as much as he would hate to ever admit it. Trump is the guy that nobody can ignore the way they did Ron, so if you want the establishment to suck and die in record numbers, then back Trump and pick up the pieces afterwards.
Trump is going to get excluded at the convention in almost exactly the same way Ron Paul did.
Here's a little refresher:
The Dempocrats were still a majority working-class protectionist party up until Clinton signed NAFTA, which is when they realigned to the whatever the fuck their platform is now.
They left a huge political vacuum just sitting on the sidelines waiting for some loud jerk like Trump to pick it up and declare it as his, so by running as a Republican against a Clinton with former Democrat policies that are wildly popular, you've engineered the perfect storm not only to elect Trump, but to change the 2 parties fundamentally, the outcome of which will likely be the Republicans becoming the National Protectionist (Socialist?) party, and the Dems having basically nothing until they put the pieces back together and try desperately to figure out how they can ever win again.
All of that assumes Trump is going to be allowed to get teh GOP nomination.
Have you looked at RCP lately?
Reince isn't going to allow it based on those numbers.
I don't care what the voters call themselves, the Democrats running for office lost in huge numbers and Republicans won in huge numbers.
And please, if you think Ron "I Have No Idea What Media Coverage Is" Paul is anything like Donald Trump, who basically is the media now, can be blackballed at this point, then you're hilariously wrong, and tremendously underestimate his support.
Romney could only steal the show because nobody knew who Ron Paul was outside of his base of support, but Trump owns it all now, and there's no making him go away anymore.
General election polls are real life meaningless prior to the nominations.
Might as well go ask your dog who'll win.
>General election polls are real life meaningless prior to the nominations.
lol okay, I guess Frank Luntz and Karl Rove better close up shop and go home then.
>I don't care what the voters call themselves, the Democrats running for office lost in huge numbers and Republicans won in huge numbers.
I know you don't care, it's obvious you have very little idea of what you're talking about and get most of what you know about history from breitbart.com and rightstuff.
>And please, if you think Ron "I Have No Idea What Media Coverage Is" Paul is anything like Donald Trump, who basically is the media now, can be blackballed at this point, then you're hilariously wrong, and tremendously underestimate his support.
I think you are hilariously, tremendously underestimating how much support Ron Paul had in 2008 and 2012. Probably because you are too young to have lived through it.
>Romney could only steal the show because nobody knew who Ron Paul was outside of his base of support, but Trump owns it all now, and there's no making him go away anymore.
Romney didn't personally steal anything. It was handed to him on a silver platter by the party apparatus in a season where almost every other candidate EXCEPT Romney won every major primary outside of super tuesday. Ron Pauls delegate votes at the convention were thrown out and recast for Romney, but it isn't against any law so who is going to stop them?
If there is a brokered convention and Trump is leading in either popular vote or delegate count, he'll either get the nomination or run 3rd party. I think if he's behind in either of those metrics he'll let it go.
He can't run third party because the deadline to file as an independent has already passed in all 50 states. Plus he would have to withdraw his name fro the GOP nomination in all 50 states, and the deadline for THAT has also already passed.
General election polls != primary polls.
General election polls aren't indicative of anything, and can swing wildly because they're basically made up.
Also, of course Ron had a lot of support, but he couldn't parlay it into even more support because he got blacklisted by the media and RNC.
I'm pretty sure you can still file for an Independent run into the spring, but he'd have to challenge sore loser laws to get onto the ballot in many places.
It doesn't really matter anyway because it's a bluff designed to paralyze the establishment into acting against him, which he accomplished long ago, and now it's basically too late to try and mount a realistic campaign against Trump because by the time an establishment candidate solidifies themselves the primaries will be half over, and likely to be heavily in favor of anyone but the establishment.
But they aren't swinging at all. Trump has lost to Clinton the entire time while every other candidate beats her. Trump even loses to Bernie more often than every other candidate. He's simply too polarizing and appealing to the outer fringe of his own party in contrast to Romney doing the opposite. This is a good thing in the primaries but has the opposite effect in the general.
It goes back to my point about Trump's rhetoric making him into a hard right ideologue/demagogue even if he's been consistently liberal up until the time he started running for president.
Do you think there is anyone left in America who doesn't know how to spell "Trump?" I'm also pretty sure you're wrong about the filing deadlines for the 2016 election. The earliest deadline for an independent is April in South Dakota.
This guy gets it. It doesn't even matter what kind of ballot access Trump has because he can get enough write-in or protest votes or people sitting at home to swing the election.
>I'm pretty sure you can still file for an Independent run into the spring
>Do you think there is anyone left in America who doesn't know how to spell "Trump?"
>I'm also pretty sure you're wrong about the filing deadlines for the 2016 election. The earliest deadline for an independent is April in South Dakota.
You're leaving out the part where he has to withdraw as a republican and the deadline for that has also already passed. You can't run as an independent AND a republican.
Wow, this is pretty surprising to me. I'd love if someone could clear up my misconceptions.
First I thought the midwest was highly conservative. I'm really shocked Texas, Utah, etc aren't in favor of Trump.
I'm also really surprised that the east coast is highly in favor of Trump considering that the east coast is more liberal overall. Maybe the liberal majority pushes the conservative minority to the more extreme candidate in hopes of catalyzing the voters? Thoughts?
>I'm really shocked Texas, Utah, etc aren't in favor of Trump.
I'm from the midwest; they're not stupid people, they're just simple (prefer simplicity) and pragmatic. Trump doesn't look like presidential material, he doesn't talk like a president, and he does not actually seem like he'll get anything accomplished (because nobody in congress will support any of his asinine plans).
It's not about being conservative or liberal. It's about voting for someone who isn't a clown/joke candidate.
The only people Trump doesn't appeal to now is the "loony left".
What some of my very liberal friends ( i.e. gays, transexuals, black gay transexuals, people from the north east ) , who are very left leaning have started trying to distance themselves from Bernie supporters, SJWs, and "Safe Space" / Anti-Free Speech activist ect.. by calling them the "Loony Left", and calling themselves "Pretty far Left".
Trump's biggest selling point is he's going to stop letting people export factory / industrial jobs to China and Mexico.
This has hurt the East more than anyone else.
I think you'll see the west coast start turning a more deep, Trumpish shade of red soon.
>Trump's biggest selling point is he's going to stop letting people export factory / industrial jobs to China and Mexico.
Why should we believe he's going to do that when he has plants there and said we need wages to be lower to compete with other countries?
He has business overseas because it's more profitable to have them overseas currently. The whole idea is to make domestic production more competitive via some tariffs, and raising the minimum wage would do the opposite of that, by pushing even more people out of work because they won't be able to compete either domestically (illegals) or globally.
He wants higher wages, as in he wants more Americans making money, but a higher minimum just puts people out of work, and with 94 MILLION people not working in the US, that would be a disaster on top of our current catastrophe.
One factory complex in China has over 400 thousand workers. They make the apple iphone.
Wonderful American company selling its products at a very low price due to money saved on labor and lack of environment and safety enforcement??
No just greedy bastards charging a huge premium for a popular product.
Trump wants those jobs here. Hell Yeah.
And you think his father didn't give him money while he was alive?
He said his father gave him a loan of a million dolalrs. Any chump could make money buying property in that day and age with a million dollars - and he lost it all
A million dollars isn't a big loan for a real estate business, much less the scale that Trump built.
I could apply for a similar business loan right now because I have perfect credit and valuable assets to back it up, and I'm not rich in the least.
And last I checked he was worth billions of dollars in current year, so I don't know what you're on about.
But I guess since any chump can do it, then surely you can do it too, so why aren't you doing it?
>government officials spend taxpayer money
Good job, you figured out how government functions. Now tell us how Trump plans to cut taxes and wage war on the middle east and not crash the economy again. Spoiler alert: you can't, because it wouldn't be possible. You can vote for the one who will tax you and spend the money on iPhones for welfare queens or the one who will tax you and set the money literally on fire, or worse, put it on the credit card like Reagan and both Bushes.
It isn't a big loan today. It was a big loan then, and thats discounting the money that his father outright gave him by virtue of them being family. And I honestly doubt you could get a million dollar business loan tomorrow. How can you say you have valuable assets but that you aren't rich?
It's equivalent to 6 million bux now, which could buy me, at best, 3-4 upper mid properties in my area.
I have assets left to me by my family, which are valuable, but I live in an extremely expensive area, so it wouldn't translate to much proportionally, but it would look good on a loan statement. I could probably get a 2-4 million dollar business loan if I went in with another guy easily, so it's not that challenging, Trump just had it easier because he didn't have to go through a bank, and instead got the loan from his Dad.
I don't even understand this argument in the first place either, people born into wealthy families don't deserve this irrational scorn that people hoist upon them. If they're able to take that wealth and turn it into more wealth, then I guess their family line just has what it takes to be wealthy, so who gives a shit?
If people have family money to risk, then they're still risking money, and that money belonging to the family means that you better not fucking lose it because then you just cost your family a truckload of cash, you little queer.
At least with Trump you have a guy with a good eye for finances that he had to develop over the decades, and not some public leech like most politicians who gamble with everyone else's money and don't give a fuck about what happens to it, because they still get paid anyway, and can likely cover up any damages they cause.
It isn't scorn. Its a reality check. Trump is rich, but he isn't rich because he invented something, or increased efficiency in something. Hes rich because he was already rich and he bullied his way into the property market of New York.
He then became a media personality and got rich off his name recognition, like Paris Hilton.
He doesn't have a good eye for finances. He has never worked in finance. He has a good eye for maximising his media exposure. That is his only talent.
>a bloo bloo that meanie Trump just bullied people to make money!
>He's only rich because he's a media star!
Wow anon, it's like aggressive people that know how to manipulate the media and build a brand are successful, or something. What a fucking revelation you've stumbled upon. There's no stopping you from making your fortune now that you've cracked the code, so god bless and enjoy your newfound riches, you gigantic moron.
Having grown up in a Red state that shows pale on the map and now currently living in a blue state that shows dark red on the map, I can now identify the reoccurring cringe and false assumptions I have to address before having a personal conversation with anyone about politics. I can now also say that I hate Trump and am proud of my home state that much more.
>iPhones for welfare queens
If you're referring to the ObamaPhone, have you even seen one? You'd feel damn stupid for comparing it to an iPhone. They're basic, cheap phones that not even poor people want. I'm not kidding, some eligible people have taken looks at them and went "nevermind."
Also, consider the fact that there are a lot of people who are on welfare who didn't have phones before the program. Whether or not they're actually looking for a job aside, how are you supposed to even get contacted for a job if you don't have a phone by which the employer can contact you? That was the main reasoning behind the program. Does this not make sense?
Shut up, reddit. It's the conservative meme. They want Trump because Trump will cut social programs to pay for tax cuts for the rich. What they can't seem to explain is how he intends to do this while putting another trillion in Dick Cheney's pocket bombing sand for another ten years and solving nothing.
You are one dumb fuck. The map is for the GOP primaries, and the article talks about that white blue collared registered democrats (an important voting base which the democrats abandoned recently)
>implying that the Midwest would ever go blue due to low voter turnout
Young liberals never come out for midterm elections. This shift to right winged candidates during midterms plays out pretty much every time. When it comes down to it, the country is pretty evenly split between liberals and conservatives but republicans can count on winning by default unless the left wing base is wiped up.
So whereas your typical liberal college student may vote once every 4 or 8 years, your typical conservative grandma will vote in every election.
So don't count midterm elections for what will happen during the presidential election. You may as well decide your republican primary off the first poll done on the issue back over a year ago.
Presidents get things done by making deals with jackasses, staffing the various organizations to operate effectively, and apparently changing the law via executive action now.
The executive branch has never been stronger than it is today, so Trump could do a lot, especially if he gets in with a large majority, because then denying him might translate to the polls and cause our leeches in congress to lose their nice jobs.
I'm a centrist and I'm voting Trump :^)
How come you aren't rich then, if you are so belligerent?
Why would you want any of those traits in a president? You want a president who can manipulate the media? You're basically asking to getfucked in the ass by a facist.
Because I recognize how difficult it actually real life it is to be successful and rich, and don't just handwave away actual marketing/personal/branding/whatever genius that it takes to attain those riches and success. So don't try and flip this on me, when you're the one literally saying, "Oh boo hoo they're only rich because _______.", so logically you should be the mega millionaire if it's so simple in your mind.
All of our successful presidents have those traits, by the way. I don't know why you think Trump is any different just because he's better at it.
Just look at Obama, if he was a Republican the media would be eating him alive for basically everything and anything, but because he isn't, and has, or had, a great control over the media, he got a free pass over basically everything. Trump gets his shit lit on fire by the media every 5 minutes, but it means nothing because nobody trusts the media anymore.
Also also, sounds like nobody on the planet knows what a fascist is, and when Trump not only prioritizes individual rights, but the rights to keep and bear arms et all, it means it's the opposite of whatever scary boogeyman you have in mind.
Actually, Obama would be the fascist, as his entire shtick is about collectivism, ruling by fiat, and trying to limit the access and usage of arms, which is what fascists do, by the way, and since he's also largely a socialist, that makes him a fascist socialist, thankfully frustrated mainly by the remnants of our federal republic system of government.
>"Oh boo hoo they're only rich becase they were born rich"
filled in the blank for you, trump is not the first person to have been born into wealth and to have capitalised on it. By your metric of what makes a good president Kim Kardashian would be a good candidate.
Why are you riding this guy's dick so much for the dual skills of inheriting wealth and being a low class loudmouth? Its because you enjoy the bile he spews. He doesn't make any arguments, he doesn't convey ideas or nuance. He doesn't lead. He positions himself at the head of the mob and tells them what they want to hear.
What has Obama done that is so bad? I think you need to come back to reality, Obama is a centre right President. Probably the most boring president of all time.
Where did you get the idea that facism is linked to reducing the usage of arms? Are you serious? Theres a wikipedia article you can read man.
Being born rich doesn't mean you're also born with the ability to succeed, just ask his dead brother. It takes actual ability to not only preserve the wealth you inherit, but to grow it.
I admire the guy because he's smart, successful, and unbending to the imagined iron will of the media that attempts to silence and shame people they don't agree with. He makes me proud to be an American, and hopefully in the fact that somebody with actual clout in the world cares more about this country than the rest of the globalist free traders that are killing off the heart of this country. You would probably understand even a fraction of his arguments if you listened to the things he says instead of taking in heaadlines via media osmosis. It's about as traditionally American as you can get, as it goes back to the protectionist entrepreneurial policies that actually helped this country succeed in the first place before we sold it off to China and Japan. Sounds like you're just horribly misinformed as to the state of the union, brother.
Also, Obama is a pile of shit, not only has he taken the overreaching wartime executive powers of Bush unto himself, but expanded them, and used them to expand the authority, unconstitutionally, of the federal government, further weakening the Republic we're supposed to be governed by
I'm not going to read some pissant wiki article to tell you what I already know. If you want to compare anybody to fascistic tendencies, then it's not Trump that comes anywhere close, but Obama, because he actually attempts to rule by diktat, directly against the will of the people, on some phony collectivist platform that nobody but illiterate niggos, 20 year old college kids, and foreigners give a shit about. He's unilaterally gone around the people, who voted in the largest Republican congress since the civil war, and done whatever the fuck he wants. That's fascist as fuck, brother. He would rule like a king if people didn't try to stop him.
>Trump will cut social programs to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
Why do people want this if they are not rich?
I mean, as far as I know about basic economics, during a downturn, those with capital will focus more on safe investments and storing capital rather than engaging in high-risk investments.
Why give people a tax cut when it is not in their interest to further invest the capital, and therefore, not create growth in the job market?
Trump will cut unconstitutional federal agencies like the EPA, Department of Education, Department of Energy, and Obamacare, hand their powers over to the states, and put all the money that was being wasted via the transfer of funds to the fed so they could transfer them to the states, back to the people to do what they want with.
>Tax cuts for the rich
Do you even know what his tax plan is? Serious question, because it takes 10 seconds on google to know that you don't.
Why do people even bother talking about things they clearly know less than 0 about
>Why do people want this if they are not rich?
Find out the answer to that question and we'll give you the Nobel Prize. Why do red states vote against the social programs they disproportionately use and then blame niggers? Why are conservatives overwhelmingly poor?
>Trump will cut unconstitutional federal agencies like the EPA, Department of Education, Department of Energy, and Obamacare, hand their powers over to the states,
That will be great, having the great State of Mississippi in charge of the education of Mississippians. A whole generation who thinks Jesus walked with dinosaurs, pi equals three, and climate change was invented by Obama the magical Kenyan Muslim nigger.
>Do you even know what his tax plan is? Serious question, because it takes 10 seconds on google to know that you don't.
You know, I was wrong.
Sorry, accidentally posted early.
To be more specific, I was wrong about the poor not also receiving a tax cut.
However, unless Trump issues big cuts in military and medicare/medicaid*, even the additional revenue from overseas investments would not even come close to revenue neutrality if Trump states he will cut the tax rate of the highest earners by nearly half.
I mean, I can still get behind the plan on other points, including simplicity and the removal of loopholes, but it would be almost impossible to lower the tax rate of the ultra wealthy AND resolve the deficit.
The last person who pulled that off was. depending on where you begin, George HW Bush and/or Bill Clinton, largely because of a decrease in military spending alongside increased tax revenue due to higher tax rates and a booming economy.
Trump already talked about military cuts, but he phrases it as "doing more with less".
The guy will likely take an axe to the budget, and chop out all the garbage that basically exists to move money around and line people's pockets.
I mean, considering the whole lot of nothing we get for our $3.5 trillion dollar annual budget, I guarantee you there's plenty of waste to cut, just in the unconstitutional agencies alone, and if we can work it to where the 94 MILLION unemployed Americans are able to actually start working again, that alone is a gigantic revenue source, but first we need to get jobs back in, and wage killing illegals out.
The whole thing is tied together, and unless you tackle all the issues at once like Trump is proposing, then nothing will ever be fixed, because nobody else really wants to fix it, or if they do, lack the ability to accomplish anything meaningful.
>The states can do whatever they please*
*If whatever they please is not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution
There is nothing to say that all power in the future could be appropriate to the Federal Government, as long as the appropriate amendment was passed.
Great dude, and roughly 0 of the power we're talking about is currently granted to the federal government via the constitution, so it's illegal.
Half the budget is probably spent on shit that's outlawed by the constitution.
Tell me where in the constitution the federal government is granted the right to maintain an interstate highway system, and use the funds and powers of which to leverage the states into bending the states to the will of the federal government despite the will of the people and or legislature of said state.
Cool dude, show me in the constitution where it says the feds have any power over education, or literally anything anyone is talking about ITT.
>he thinks it has to be in the constitution for it to be law
The constitution is just a mission statement. The actual law is called The United States Code. People don't get arrested for violating the constitution, they get arrested/epnalized/fined/sanctioned for violating the either local ordinances, state code, or US Code.
You would know that already if you had over a 10th grade grasp of how the government works. The constitution is a living document anyway that is continually changed based on the whims of whatever current generation controls things (and always has been since the beginning).
The constitution grants the federal government specific powers, any powers not stated in the constitution are granted to the states via the 10th amendment. If you want to give the feds the power to do something then you need to amend the constitution, and we haven't for any of these things.
You are retarded and a gay.
>The constitution is just a mission statement
You are extremely retarded and a hard gay.
Here's my guess.
They've been convinced into thinking that all their financial problems are the fault of low income people. And they've associated low income with being lazy, stupid, selfish, entitled, frivolous, etc.
But they don't see themselves as lazy, stupid, selfish, entitled and frivolous. They see themselves as real, honest, hardworking Americans. Everyone who isn't doing well and is not them are failing exclusively because of their own personal faults and are dragging down everyone else.
When these people see themselves failing, they say "Hey, I'm doing the best I can. If it wasn't for all those freeloaders I would be rich." And they think this without stopping to consider that most of those "freeloaders" are in the same boat they are and are thinking the same thing about them.
It's amazing people actually think that if you're on welfare the government will give you shit like a current model iPhone.
There's also people who think the only reason people on minimum wage have trouble getting by is because they spend all their money on lobster and sports cars.
Attempting to extend the metaphor, the state is a company and the citizens of the state are its shareholders. The chief executive's (president's) duty to his shareholders (constituents) is to provide a return (services) on their investment (taxes).
>Tell me where in the constitution the federal government is granted the right to maintain an interstate highway system,
Cars hadn't been invented yet, you imbecile. You just made a case for rewriting the Constitution, not maintaining it. The State of Mississippi should not have the right to teach their kids bullshit in schools, for many, many reasons.
Oh so you admit it's not in the constitution which makes it illegal, thanks for stating the obvious :^y
>should not have the right
Oh but you have the right to tell people what they can teach their kids, right? I guess our tremendously effective public school system, the beacon for free thinking and critical thought just blows everything else away.
Oh wait, even homeschooled kids do miles better than kids in public school, but maybe they're not teaching their kids rightthink so we better go ban that too, because freedom is shit when we can instead force people into failing institutions to make sure they don't learn wrong by teaching them inefficiently in a system nobody likes.
Epic dude, you really got your smarty pants cap on today with these hot opinions.
>The home-educated typically score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests. (The public school average is the 50th percentile; scores range from 1 to 99.)
>Homeschool students score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents’ level of formal education or their family’s household income.
>Whether homeschool parents were ever certified teachers is not related to their children’s academic achievement.
>Degree of state control and regulation of homeschooling is not related to academic achievement.
>Home-educated students typically score above average on the SAT and ACT tests that colleges consider for admissions.
>Homeschool students are increasingly being actively recruited by colleges
>Majority of the top schools in the world are located in the US
Did Mohammad bully you out of your semen rations?
Like what? The fact that whatever is it we're talking about doesn't exist in the constitution, and thus has it's regulations granted to the states?
If it's so easy to knock my claims then it would take maybe 2 minutes to disprove it, so go ahead and do it or go back to sucking dicks for dimes.
A business interest in letting kids learn at home, outside of the influence of any major or minor business?
>latest decree is to undo Obama's gun executive orders
Trump can make decrees now? God emperor indeed.
Anyway, those executive orders are a complete farce.
The president played his progressive mongoloids like a fiddle.
Trump changing them would similarly be a complete farce.
These are bullshit to anyone who knows anything about education. Comparing the fractional percentage of homeschooled students who actually take standardized tests to the supermajority of public high school students who take them is a useless metric and you know it. It's pure propaganda.
Unfortunately, she's going to win, no matter what. *ALL* moderate democratic voters support her.
When it comes down to Hilldawg v. Trump this year, she will win. There's a fairly great chance she'd struggle a bit more if she were to go up against Rubio, but he probably won't win the primary election.
Yeah bro, all those blue collar Democrats who've been ignored by the party for the last generation are just clamoring to come out and vote for Hillary instead of the rich loudmouth who's promising to bring back the only chance of an economic future these people will ever have.
I mean, Hillary herself said she wants to bring back jobs, and when she says something she means it! Plus, her wonderful and popular husband who totally didn't go to Jeffrey Epstein's private pedophile island to bang underage girls will be a huge asset on the campaign trail, and Trump going after him over his numerous sexual predations that Hillary herself helped covered up will only make her more popular because _____. Oh and don't worry about her health, because she's in top notch condition, and when she lied to congress about sending over 1,000 classified emails via a private server and then destroying the evidence, well those are just trumped up charges by those wicked Republicans and their vast right wing conspiracy.
It's ogre, Trump lost.
I dont get this honestly, Trump is litterally the american putin, theres not a single thing to hate about that man except that he triggers libbies hard just by saying the truth, why woudn't all americans vote for him? do they believe the free shit man?
Trump still believes that we can bomb our way to safety from international terror, that there's a combination or permutation of bombs, troops, time, and money that will end this phantom war. He thinks he can do this without raising revenue (taxes) which means it's either going on the credit card of the next generation or we'll be cutting already threadbare social services to pay for more and more military spending which is ultimately wasteful, it's money you literally set on fire.
I would vote for literally anyone else.
Trump is an isolationist that wants to let Russia handle Syria so we can leave the dump of the middle least and spend money at home, hence the "doing more with less", and "let Russia do it, who cares?"
Literally all his policies are traditional American policies of moderate protectionism and non-interventionalism.
Damn son, it's like people don't even listen to what he says.
Letting Russia bomb the shit out of them with American support would probably satisfy that, as long as they're getting the shit bombed out of them by some American back entity.
He can easily go into his first year with Russia going the heavy lifting and America giving them the support they need to do so, and everyone would be fine with it because as long as ISIS is getting BTFO, then that's all that really matters.