Why the Right has become a laughing stock.

He owns 3 homes and is in the top 4%. How many homes do you own?


http://time.com/money/4235986/bernie-sanders-millionaire-finances/
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/17/what-is-bernie-sanders-net-worth.aspx
http://fortune.com/2016/02/28/bernie-sanders-socialist-finances/
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...reported_net_worth_on_his_emthirdem_home.html

 

Check this out.
http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sande...can-senators-poorer-vermont-socialist-2529704

 

Why that suggests that Sanders is a hypocrite.

 

Yeah I don't think vietvet is coming back

 

Pesky facts n such.

 

The right controls:

1) the vast majority of state legislatures
2) the vast majority of governorships
3) the U.S. House
4) the U.S. Senate
5) the presidency
6) the Supreme Court

And you say the right has become a joke? If true, then give me some more of it.

 

Facts are stubborn things, these projecting lefties can't seem to get around em.

 

Trump had to close " Trump University " over Lawsuits So much for whatever skill he has to impart...............
I will say he makes a great reality TV star Lots of Drama. Just what reality TV is about.

 

My estimation of Hillary Clinton was that she was a pathological, serial liar.

Hillary still blames others for her loss. She is such a narcissist, she can't face reality. She believed it was "her turn". What kind of person thinks they deserve the presidency because it is "my turn"? Despite her disastrous term as Secretary of State, she thought she deserved the presidency.

The Clintons are worth $250,000,000. Did you really think Hillary was going to appoint people from the middle class? (Incidentally, 9 of the top 15 richest members of Congress are Democrats.)

And Hillary called half of the electorate "a basket of deplorables". She came across as a rich, phony, arrogant, Washington elitist/insider.

Enough people saw through Hillary to give Trump the win. She didn't quite fool enough people.


The bottom line is that we were given two choices: Trump or Hillary. And the things you hate about Trump are the same things people hated about Hillary. I would suggest that Trump-haters focus their energies on bringing forward a Democrat that better represents all of America, but it looks like the DNC has other plans, so it won't be easy.

 

Please the only laughing are leftist and they're all on the outside looking in. I can live with that.

How many eyars in a row do you have to make 200 grand to become a millionaire if you are willing to live frugally and *gasp* invest wisely?

 

Anything is more transparent than Obama and Hillary, including tar.

 

As they should be. As should everyone be ..not just with Trump but with the whole political clown show.

Trump is the least of my worries ... Presidents come and go. SCOTUS on the other hand, and the various mess of a bureaucracy and the rules by this these institutions operate is a far greater concern.

 

SCOTUS will be Trumps greatest gift. Perhaps Kennedy will step down this summer. And Ginsberg is likely to go also.

 

Gorsuch has not been around the SC long enough for me to condemn him. I'm sure it will not take long.

The rest of SCOTUS should all be dismissed for dereliction of duty - failing to interpret law and the constitution on the basis of the basic principles on which this nation was founded.

1) Individual rights and freedoms/liberty "above" the legitimate authority of Gov't
Rights end where the nose of another begins - this is where the authority of Gov't also begins and ends.

2) the authority of Gov't comes from "we the people" as opposed to "Divine right/God" as was done in the past.
3) Should Gov't want to make a law outside its legit authority - especially in the case where it messes with individual liberty - it must be supported by an "overwhelming majority" of we the people .. which is not 50+1. This was termed "Tyranny of the Majority" by the founders and is a tenet of Republicanism and Classical Liberalism.

There is no point in having individual liberty "Above" Gov't authority if a simple majority can overide liberty. Every Gov't has a simple majority mandate. The bar is at least 2/3rds majority.

The Founders sought to limit Gov't power/authority. For 200 years Gov't has been trying to get that power back.. and they have succeeded.

We have fallen so far down the slippery slope we can no longer even see the mountaintop. ... thanks to SCOTUS and our sick system of injustice. .

 

You make some good points but there is the reality of where we are now. I live in California, its not hard to see govt intruding where it should not, but its an every day occurrence.

Trump is imperfect, but he's effective.

 

Effective to what end ... this is the question. California is a prime example of Gov't going beyond it's legitimate authority ... but, this is the situation we are in ... Every state is guilty of the same and this goes right up to the top (Feds).

When the founders made these principles - they did not just apply to the Federal Gov't. They apply to all Gov'ts State and Local.

The Municipalities are perhaps the worst offenders. Never mind "Tyranny of the Majority" .. this is "Tyranny of the Minority". Telling businesses when they have to close. Banning this, banning that... all on the basis of what - certainly not the overwhelming majority.

We get a few special interest groups yapping up a storm. Get 10 of your friends to phone the local senator .. spaced out over a month or two.

Woo hoo ... next thing you know the office is looking into the issue (the Public has spoken). Pretty soon some org is getting funding. Next advertising and commercials (often filled with misleading info, bad science, or bad statistical conclusions) .. next thing you know there are new bylaw's being put forth. Excuse me == were "we the people" consulted ? is there even a reasonable expectation that 50% would support never mind "overwhelming majority".

In cases where the "police" or "EPA" has an opinion... legislation is passed with little or no public consultation. Like I give a flying frick what the cops or EPA have to say in general. Can you say "Conflict of Interest" ? Give your "evidence" to the people and they are the one's who decide.

Much ado is made about harm reduction these days "if it saves one life" and be heard from teary eyed political clowns.

ummm ... excuse me but... This is utilitarianism.... Justification for law that looks only at "what will increase happiness (increased utility) for the collective. This is an ends justifies the means justification that has no regard for individual rights and freedoms.

Since when was the Gov't given authority to violate liberty on this basis ? I do not recall the Gov't having this discussion with me.

Aside from the fact that this is a direct violation of Individual liberty "Above" Gov't authority. Who gets to decide what will increase my happiness. One man's poison is another mans pleasure.

Then there is "fallacious" utilitarianism - when the argument is not even a good utilitarian argument.

For example: "If it saves one life"/ harm reduction Is this a valid justification for law ?
This is a very insidious argument - Who does not want to save one life ? Sounds real good on the surface doesn't it.

Shall we test this claim ? If indeed this is good justification for law - Should we not ban skiing tomorrow ? would this not save one life.
What about boating ? This is really dangerous - one could drown. Driving a car ? Banned immediately ... one of the most dangerous activities a human can do. In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

This is a horrible justification for law. Freedom means the freedom to take a certain amount of risk of harm.

Who get's to decide what is so unreasonable - that Gov't needs to be given power to use physical violence (law) to stop people from doing the action. ... We the People .. that's who ... and the bar is no different from any other law ... Overwhelming majority.

How many people think murder, rape, incest, pedophilia, theft and so on ... should be legal ? The bar is no different for any other law.

Everyone talks about "limited Gov't". OK Limited to what ?

I can go into all the background an theory behind this statement .. but Tom sums it up nicely.

You want to ban xmas ... no problem - get overwhelming majority to agree and its done.
You want to ban Pot ... no problem - good luck getting overwhelming majority. If you do not like it don't smoke it.
Heroin/Meth ? No problem - getting overwhelming majority is piece of cake.
You think 18 years is old enough for a kid to risk his life in war ... but not old enough to drink alcohol ? no problem - Overwhelming majority

You want your children protected ? Then protect your children an teach them well. Why am I to be punished on the basis of what some kid might do. What part of the "Rule of Law" - one person is not to be punished for the actions of another - don't these idiots understand ?

The founders set up a brilliant system - if we would just follow it. If something is so offensive or dangerous to the public that the Gov't should be given authority to use the threat of physical violence to stop people from doing said action .... then, there will be overwhelming agreement.

This is what freedom is about. We currently live in a nanny state - Tyranny of the majority if nor minority.

Trump is all about increasing police powers at the expense of individual liberty. Same thing that has been going on for many decades.

 

He did beat Hillary though.

It Pays To Increase Your Word Power®

ANILITY is the quality of being an old woman.

Usage: "Hillary Clinton's fleshy jowls jiggled with anility."

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/369606.php

 

Its interesting that we see many of the same problems but come to different conclusions.

Im familiar with the "if it saves just one life" argument, its used here often. It was used to restrict my gun rights as well-in fact Californians have to sell their private property, that was legally obtained because muslims murdered people at a christmas party.

I remember when Obama lied to every American, then forced them to buy health insurance. My premium went up, to pay for dependopotamuses.

And if given the choice between Trump and Hillary-its not even a difficult choice. Trump.

 

Nothing can ameliorate the villainous anility of Hillary Clinton.

 

Welcome to the libertarian party...

 

Out of curiosity, can you share with us just how much money he has in his bank accounts; i'm sure to make a statement like that you must have some sort of empirical proof you can share with us.

 

Good gracious ... If only for the fact that I did not have to listen to that irritating condescending self righteous squawk .. is almost enough in of itself to tip the scales towards Trump. Hilly is Establishment insider elitist to the core. She hates individual rights and freedoms and loves trampling on the constitution. A hypocritical nasty woman.

This is not about dumping Trump to favor Hilly or the left. I am a constitution loving free market fiscal conservative (old style - prior to the religious right taking over the party).

This is about how the Establishment (international financiers and bureaucracy) have taken over and are turning this country into a quazi totalitarian nanny/police state.

Hillary would do nothing but further this agenda. Unfortunately, so will Trump. Already he is going after Pot. This is a relatively small thing that speaks volumes about who this goblin really is.

 

Projection much?

 

I would like to see them get a chance. I wish this love affair with purple would end.

 

The man dropped out of the race, endorsed Hillary and then within a month he purchased a third home, worth well over half a rock.

The timing of that is so suspicious it has turned a lot of people off.