Trump (GOP) Orchestrated Destruction of America

This is the main point.
The idea that an incoming President has any requirement to continue the policies of the outgoing President is absurd on its face.
As policies change with the passing of power, so too do the people that implement these policies; that the new people might be hostile to the policies of the previous administration is, well, irrelevant to anything of importance.

Elections have consequences.
The Democrats can ride along, but they have to sit in the back.

 

Communism isn't progress as a matter of fact countries that surcomed to communist rule went backwards

 

Communism isn't a progressive agenda. It's a regressive agenda. Unrestrained/unregulated capitalism is also a regressive agenda.

Progressive agendas are about the Natural Right of Liberty with the understanding that Liberty does not imply License. The Right of Liberty is linked to Responsibility and that is apparently something the GOP doesn't seem to understand. The GOP embraces "License" which allows people to violate the rights of others.

That's why I'm a Libertarian and they're not and it's also why I dumped the Libertarian Party last year because the Libertarian Party is advocating for "License" and not the Right of Liberty anymore. Gary Johnson, a Republican wearing a fake Libertarian hat, has corrupted the party (or at least I believe that's what caused the corruption).

 

Interesting.
What responsibilities are inherently linked to the right to have an abortion?

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

The American ideology supersedes any other considerations. If you don't know what it is then here's what the founders established:

http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/americas-first-principles.php

We're also a Constitutional government and if the GOP doesn't like a Supreme Court decision on the Constitutional Rights of the People then the GOP can try to amend the Constitution to change that. What no member of our government has the authority to do is nefariously violate the Constitution by any means.

There are also policy issues that have been universally established by all prior administration and they're not to be violated based upon the whims of a president with his head stuck up his rectal cavity. They're often fragile and based upon criteria that a incompetent and ignorant person doesn't understand. An uninformed mistake by an American President can result in thousands, tens of thousands, and even millions of innocent people dying around the world. No President has the authority to cause these deaths just because they're an ignorant SOB with their head up their rectal cavity.

So no, just because someone is elected to be president doesn't grant them unlimited powers and it doesn't even grant they the authority to use the powers they have just to create chaos, death, and destruction. Trump was elected to be the President of ALL Americans and not elected to be the American GOD that can do whatever he ******ned wants to do.

 

Where have you been for the last 8 years ? Trumps picks are miles ahead of Obamas

- - - Updated - - -

Especially when he ran on ending those policies

 

It's actually very supportable for anyone that understands the natural rights of the person.

The Natural Right of Self, the foundation for all unalienable/inalienable natural rights, requires a person to act responsible related to their own best interests without violating the rights of another person. The fetus prior to natural viability, even if granted recognition as a person, fundamentally hasn't acquired any natural rights because those rights cannot exist until the conflict with the established rights of the woman no longer exist. The woman having an abortion for virtually any self-interest prior to viability of the fetus is acting responsibly. After viability the woman would require a very compelling reason to have an abortion and, in fact, she doesn't even have the authority to decide to have the abortion at that point and only has the authority to refuse to have the abortion. Only a medical professional can authorize an abortion after fetal viability and then the woman would consent to the medical decision or refuse to consent.

Other cases can exist. A woman that is a drug addict would be irresponsible to have a baby born as an addict. A woman that might know the fetus has severe mental and/or physical disabilities rendering it forever dependent upon others would be irresponsible to have the baby.

Women are not typically acting irresponsibly when having an abortion based upon the Supreme Court decision but that is not to imply that they couldn't based upon the "License" granted to them.

 

There's no such thing as a "progressive libertarian". It's an oxymoron. Progressive agendas are concerned with expanding the power and control of the Federal Government and using it as a tool for change. Libertarianism advocates for the least amount of Government control possible over the lives of its citizenry. There is so much dissonance between the two I have no clue how you attempt to reconcile them.

 

Selecting individuals that are opposed, often even hostile, to the mission statement of an agency or department is not being "miles ahead of anyone" under any circumstances.

Donald Trump doesn't have that authority. Like all presidents, and those he appoints under his office, they are required to comply with the law. The departments and agencies that he's appointing individuals to have legal roles and responsibilities established by the law that they must comply with foremost of which is the Mission Statement of the agency or department.

Additionally each person appointed to head a department is required to take an oath to "faithfully discharge the duties of the office" and those that Donald Trump is appointing, based upon the history of hostility to the agencies and departments they're being appointed to head, virtually ensures that they will not and aren't even capable of faithfully discharging the duties of the office.

That being the case then each and every one of them will be in violation of their sworn oath that constitutes felony perjury under federal law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331

Should I expect Trump Republicans to advocate any support the laws of the United States?

Probably not considering the fact that a favorite Republican sayings is, "Stop waving the Constitution in my face. It's just a ******ned piece of paper."


The fact that Donald Trump is ignorant about virtually every role and responsibility of office, that he's ignorant on the reasons for the United States policies on every single issue, and that he doesn't have a clue when it comes to being president, and doesn't even reflect any desire to learn does not exempt Donald Trump from being responsible for faithfully discharging the duties of the Office of the President. Trump is going to be flat on his face the first full day he's in office because he doesn't have a friggin' clue about what he's responsible for and frankly he doesn't even care.

 

Not a single one of those departments is needed

 

That's a misuse of the term "progressive" that is not related to any political party's ideology. Just because Democrats claim to be progressives doesn't imply that they are progressive because they've been known to advocate regressive policies that actually prevent progress.

No, Libertarianism (not the Libertarian Party) advocates "Limited Government" and not the "Minimalist Government" that advocated for by Republicans. There's huge difference between the two and when we address "Limited Government" it's defined in one of the First Principles of the United States.

http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/americas-first-principles.php

The size of the government is driven by the necessity to protect the "unalienable rights" of the People/Person. For example pollution and the destruction of nature violate the "rights of the common" (all people) so the more pollution and destruction of nature that's occurring the larger and/or authoritarian the government must grow until it prevents the pollution and destruction.

The minimalistic government is incapable of preventing the violations of the "unalienable rights" and is an "intolerable" government as expressed by Thomas Paine because the government we create is the government that allows the violations of our rights.

 

Then Congress has the authority to close the department but as long as the LAWS establish the departments and establish the responsibilities of department then Donald Trump and those appointed to head those departments are required to fulfill the duties of that department as established under the law.

I do find it interesting that anyone would suggest that the Department of Justice shouldn't exist. Apparently allowing terrorists to strike the United States whenever they want and to allow state laws that nefariously prevent Americans from voting is acceptable for some people.

Get back to me after someone you know is killed by a terrorist or when you go to vote and find out you can't vote because of a law that can't be justified. Talk to me when the government bulldozes your house and takes your land. If a friends daughter is kidnapped and transported to another state when the FBI no longer exists to track down the kidnapper then let me know about why the DOJ shouldn't exist.

Oh, but maybe you just want to leave all those problems behind and go fishing up in the mountains... but when you arrive the forests are dead from acid rain and the fish are poisonous because of the coal ash that was dumped into the river.

Tell me about how unimportant and unnecessary these agencies are.

In the meantime Donald Trump is the President and is ultimately responsible for ensure that each of these departments do exactly what they're required to do under the law. The Department of Labor must be supporting the workers of America. The EPA must be fighting those that pollute and destroy the environment and protecting human life. The Dept of Education must be working to both fund and improve education in out public schools

 

Cause getting slapped down by the courts means they are working well. LOL

 

Barring some unexpected miracle the things you refer to are destined to happen and we must depend on our Constitution to prevent the worst. Unfortunately it would seem those in power may have the inclination and ability to disregard it.

 

I look forward to the new Attorney General filing suits to protect the religious liberty rights of Americans guaranteed by the First Amendment.

I look forward to the new Attorney General protecting the free speech rights of persons on College Campuses now burdened by speech codes and quashing of rights due to tyrannical political correctness.

I look forward to the new Attorney General filing lawsuits against jurisdictions that proclaim their status as "sanctuary cities" that put the rights to safety and property of citizens in the country at risk by violators of our laws against illegal immigration. This will include protecting citizens against exploitation by unscrupulous employers and politicians who deprive them of their rights as citizens by favoring foreign nationals who don't belong in the country.

I look forward to the new Attorney General protecting the civil rights of all Americans under the second Amendment and filing suits against those jurisdictions that would restrict or eliminate those rights.

There are many more rights that our citizens should have protected, many of which that are under vicious assault by the current regime. I look forward to having an Attorney General who will enforce constitutional rights actually in the constitution and will not fabricate rights that do not exist.

 

Yep. Authoritarian "progressive".

 

You have that backwards. Conservatives stand for "limited Government", whereas Libertarians advocate for the least amount of Government possible over its citizenry. You're seriously, seriously confused if you think Republicans as a whole stand for "minimalist Government".

Thomas Paine would have never been in support of a bloated and unchecked regulatory bureaucracy like the EPA, which hinders the rights of people and businesses to make a living, far beyond the scope of what it was originally designed to do.

Here's what the "progressive" EPA is doing to farmers in California:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/us/threatened-smelt-touches-off-battles-in-californias-endless-water-wars.html?_r=0

You think Thomas Paine would have watched farmers abandoning their family farms because they couldn't get any water, so that a fish that nobody cares about could have more?

- - - Updated - - -

It's like hitting the gas and the brake at the same time on a car. Grow Government as much as possible to protect the ever-expanding definition of liberal "rights", but keep that Government limited! Makes no sense.

 

A term you can neither soundly define nor describe in anything more compelling than your partisan opinion.

No President is bound to the polices of any preceding President.
Elections have consequences.
The Democrats can ride along, but they have to sit in the back.

- - - Updated - - -

Since you avoided my question, I will ask again:
What responsibilities are inherently linked to the right to have an abortion?

 

A government must be "authoritarian" in order to protect the unalienable/inalienable (natural) Rights of the People Person. That was the basis for Thomas Paine's statement:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

The government that allows people in society to violate the natural unalienable/inalienable rights of the people/person because of a lack of authority or it's failure to exercise that authority is just as intolerable as the government that violates the natural unalienable/inalienable rights of the people/person because our "calamity" is just the same because we created the government that allowed the violations.

When, for example, our government allows the coal industry, that largest single source of pollution in the United States to not only pollute but to generate almost twice as much pollution compared to what even the coal industry says necessary, then our government is allowing a flagrant violation of the natural unalienable/inalienable Right of the People to air, land, and water that is unpolluted by other people. The only reason for government to exist is to protect our rights and if it's not doing that then we cannot justify our government at all.

 

Only if you change the definition of the word in "" ""

 

ROFLMAO

The Republican Party is perhaps the greatest opponent to the natural unalienable/inalienable rights of the person.

Explain why Republicans would prevent millions of American citizens that were registered voters from voting with laws that only address 32 reported possible cases of "criminal" voter impersonation at the polls our of roughly one billion votes being cast?

Explain to me why Republican completely ignore the discrimination against people based upon racial and religious prejudice in the United States that violates the people's right to equality in the United States.

Why aren't Republicans addressing the massive pollution by the coal and oil companies that violates everyone's natural unalienable/inalienable rights.

Why do Republicans oppose the natural right of property?

Why do Republicans oppose the rights of a woman to have an abortion.

Try naming a single "natural right" that Republican even support. They support the "Right to keep and bear arms" but that's a statutory right and not a natural right.

The natural right of property allows a person to take from nature what they require for their personal/family survival and comfort but there's a caveat because there must be "enough, and as good" as left remaining in nature for others. Try reading Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5 "Of Property" and perhaps you'll learn something.

The farmers in California were allows to take as much water as they required for their personal use. They couldn't take more for commercial use nor is "commerce" a natural right. Commerce is a statutory right. They could have grown drought tolerant crops of course so they didn't need the river water for their commercial enterprise.

No man has the right to "spoil or destroy nature" and the endangering of a species is the destruction of nature. Thomas Paine knew that would never have supported people endangering a species based upon pure commercial greed.

Yes, I believe Thomas Paine knew and understood natural rights and he would have been an environmentalist today based upon his understanding of natural rights.

 

Who, specifically, was unable to vote because of any of these laws?

 

I'm not a member of any political party because I resigned from the Libertarian Party last year after it was clearly evident that they no longer supported the Natural Right of Liberty and have instead adopted support for Statutory License.

All presidents must comply with the US Constitution, the ratified treaties the United States is a party to (including the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the NATO treaty), and all US laws.

We all know that Donald Trump doesn't have the faintest idea what these laws and treaties he must comply with are but ignorance is no excuse when a person violates a law. Based upon US treaties alone Donald Trump can easily become a War Criminal based upon several of his proposed actions.

So no, a president can't just do whatever they damn well please because they are trapped by the "rule of law" and Trump doesn't even know what the laws are,

 

I view grandstanding as an admission that you have no credible rebuttal. I'll let others decide for themselves how persuasive this is.

False premise. There have been many more cases of voter fraud.

And how is requiring an ID to vote a violation of someone's rights? You need an ID to perform most tasks in society, such as driving an automobile, buying certain products, doing any amount of banking.

The left opposes voter ID because it prevents illegal immigrants, ex-convicts, and other groups who would vote Democrat but for their ineligibility - from voting. That's it. Any other reason is just a smokescreen.

They have equality of opportunity. What you're complaining about is how they lack the equality of outcomes, and that's a completely different issue. Some groups perform better in society because they have better values, upbringing, and opportunities.

If you're talking about prejudice, it's not limited to just Republicans. Democrats are heavily bigoted against white males (many examples upon request), fundamentalist Christians, and others.

Another false premise. Coal and oil companies are not violating rights. Human activity is going to cause some pollution. The best we can do is minimize it and control it. People have a right to produce, make a living, feed their families, travel, etc. Why aren't you concerned about those rights?

What specifically are you referring to? This one makes me laugh, considering how many on the left do not believe in the concept of private property and believe everything should be shared or owned collectively.

How is that a natural right? If you think rights are God given, like the Founders did, why in the hell would you believe that a woman killing her unborn child is consistent with that concept? Some Republicans (not all) believe abortions are murder, and people do not have the right to commit murder and take a life.

I would argue the right to self-defense and defense of one's family is a natural right.

Your definition of "natural rights" is basically whatever the left-wing wants as part of their social revolution, which has campaigned hard against the existence of family, nation, and anything else that promotes stability in society.

 

For the last eight years it's been quite obvious that the two Attorney Generals of the DOJ appointed by Barack Obama were biased and used their positions to undermine the rights of all Americans while advancing their own biased ideologies in keeping with the orders given by their dear leader Barack Hussein Obama II. Both their histories prove this by their actions and fact.