Mean, Bad Po-Po Copping a Feel on Fragile Millenial Damsel

[Slash0311]

Slash I am 100% pro Constitution and Pro BOR, that makes me technically anti policing, but not anti cop. As far as your schtick about belting up, I have been an oil worker since I left the Army 30 years ago, belting up is nothing special, quite, cushy and safe actually, so drop the woe is me I have a tough Job act, being a cop is quite safe. Now to your hypothetical question. I would have drove by and made sure there wasn't any gunfire, or other apparent felonies going on and kept on driving if there weren't.

And... Ignore activate. Clearly I'm not worthy to carry you spit bucket. I'm so unworthy of your hard and robust life. How could a lowly police officer ever hold a candle to your career choice. Clearly my crocodile tears are blueing my vision to not allow me to see how you can clearly do my job better.

Or how about you just stick to your job and I'll do mine. I won't tell you how to do your job, you don't tell me how to do mine. I hope the next time you're out driving or riding your motorcycle, you're not in an area where the police are just waiting to react to the next incident.

 

[WaltHer]

I wonder how people would have viewed this incident if it was a 190#/6' male instead of this dumb tuna? In academy we were instructed to not show racial, gender, outward physical size, etc. preference to anyone- because that's how people get hurt- underestimating their opponent. We were also instructed-and I've seen it in living color- that woman will fight or continue to fight when men would know the fight is over- because they most likely haven't had their ass handed to them numerous times, or have been shown deference because of their sex.

Proactive policing saves lives and stops crime. It's that simple. You want your individual rights protected- pass out at home in your driveway, not at a Kum and Go, McDonalds Drive through, or a stop sign. In this case the officer offered her every way out of this problem- she continued to talk herself back in. The officer handled her very gently until she forced him not to. Life is about choices, those choices have consequences, when you pile enough bad choices and their resulting consequences on top of each other, sometimes it hurts, that's life right?

"Its funny how you think people are responsible for their actions yet you feel compelled to wake them up when they are taking a power nap, or passed out. How do you connect that?"

In this particular case it sure looks like the officers on scene gave her every chance to be responsible for her actions, till she forced them to take action. My dad always added the corollary to being responsible for yourself which was, "and if you can't, someone else will be".

 

[pmclaine]

That is only one possible scenario, and based on what youve been taught it has to be.

I go even deeper than Jerry, I am 100% Declaration of Independence. Like Jerry I am anti excess policing not anti cop. As I said in another thread, on Nanny State, Too many cops is as bad or worse than not enough. How do we solve that?

If criminals knew that EVERY citizen was trained in self defense and use of a fire arm before they left high school, and expected to have one and be able to defend themselves, what do you think that would do o the home invasion, mugging, car jacking rate? It should plummet. Parasites prefer to prey on the weak and vulnerable. Even granny in the wheelchair can pull the trigger. Require it. If the citizen chooses not to use it, their problem.

So even from the right/conservative side, and the cops who think 'more policing' is the answer, youre creating weaker citizens and proliferating the nanny state. Strong, independent people founded and settled this country. The settlers didnt have a squad car around the corner...they took care of business.

So lets take a non toxic subject, former mayor Blumbag's shot at making 1,000,000 oz slurpies illegal. Of course all that shit is bad for you and needs to be curtailed, but my reading of the Constitution says they have every right to sell it. So do you violate the intent of the C and ban it (so it will go underground and create a criminal class you can now put in jail) or do you use plan 'B' and educate people to make their own wise decisions. They did it with tobacco and use plummeted.

Education or Enforcement. Think about it.

We need both but lets through more weight on education. Arent better educated better trained cops generally
better' cops. Tat holds true of the citizen as well.

You need to only have the populace regain a full and total understanding of RESPONSIBILITY and apply it.

We currently are all about DEPENDENCE and fully immersed in it.

"You didn't build that", "It takes a village", "No one goes it alone" - sure, but not the way the new Dem Party means it. Altruism is one thing, controlling the lemmings is another.

Here is a sacred cow for you.......why all the handwringing about PTSD and the care of servicemen?

DEPENDENCE.

Get the Hopelites on the tit, tell them they are "damaged", give them 70 percent for bouts of diarrhea because they lived near a lake that changed colors.

Im not saying guys are not banged up, they have been in every period of service.

Right now though someone has their sights on you and they are tempting to"Just bite the apple, everyone does".

"They" are the same people that hated service people in the 60s.

"They" couldn't get their way with hating you, so now they want to kill you with kindness and buy who they can.

War is good for creating people we can buy so lets engage in the longest conflict in our 240 plus years of history fighting in countries that operate with open sewerage systems. This isn't the soldiers fault. Their fighting has been superb but because they are so good the pols have handicapped them with crappy ROE and no strategic goal other than creating a constant state of war.

Everything was going their way, social unrest, class warfare, drug dependence, a growing number of people receiving entitlements, the war was spreading to our shores and than Trump fucked it up.

You know how much work went into destroying the country and now the New York fool wants to roll it back.

By now the left had visions of Australian style gun confiscation.

The media picked Trump as the Trojan Horse, just like they picked McCain and they picked Romney. Pick the least electable candidate, destroy the others, than destroy "the fool".

Their arrogance backfired on them and that is why they are insane with rage, so close and now its all ruined.

Sadly many in the opposition party are also .

They don't care about the country they care about their power and privilege.

All these things are symptoms of a very bad disease. Remission isn't enough, we need a total cure.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

we need a total cure.

And that promises to be ugly....

Let's hope that remission will be successful.

Then again, hope is not a strategy.

You know, there is probably a best-selling novel out there for someone who wants to do a "Red Storm Rising" style scenario for what would happen if the ANTIFA fruitbats set off the revolution they are looking for so doggedly...

Again, it is the last thing that anyone should ever want.

Just in case noone has ever read it in entirety... Lincoln's Inaugural ranks with the Gettysburg Address as an amazing piece of brevity (most inaugurals went on for 4 hours or more....)...

In compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."

I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause -- as cheerfully to one section as to another.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution -- to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause, "shall be delivered," their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law, by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by state authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him, or to others, by which authority it is done. And should any one, in any case, be content that his oath shall go unkept, on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?

Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well, at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?

I take the official oath to-day, with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws, by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to, and abide by, all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our national Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens, have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have conducted it through many perils; and, generally, with great success. Yet, with all this scope for [of] precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years, under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was "to form a more perfect Union." But if [the] destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is lessperfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, -- that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality, shall be so great and so universal, as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices.

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed, unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper; and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step, while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to, are greater than all the real ones you fly from? Will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?

All profess to be content in the Union, if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted, that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution -- certainly would, if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities, and of individuals, are so plainly assured to them, by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. MustCongress protect slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government, is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority, in such case, will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments, are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.

I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them; and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections, than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all, by the other.

Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.

I will venture to add that to me the Convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions, originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor.

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope, in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth, and that justice, will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.

By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals.

While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well, upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied, hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.


The short version is that everything must be done to use the Constitutional Processes to chart the future course of our Republic. To wish for less is not a good thing. To prepare for less, IMHO, is a responsibility.

But what do I know... I'm just Barney Fife (Ret.)

Sirhr

 

[ArmyJerry]

You are correct and every American that passed second grade History(pre 1990 evidently)knows the cure for this disease.

 

[pmclaine]

I'm not advocating any sort of violence.

That is for the other side.

This fever has to break.

The Russia thing is complete and total dog shit.

I think the Dems saw the loss coming and this is plan B....a soft coup of sorts to sidetrack Trumps agenda.

Look at this Hawaii judge saying second cousins twice removed are close family. Let's see how the Supreme Court handles his BS as to whether the cure will take hold.

Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy.....you can bet Chuck Schumer prays for their health and stamina every night. Two possibly three Trump picks and the cure is at least being injected for twenty more years.

Trump needs to survive beyond Soros, Ayres, and the other evil cabalists that want to destroy our country. I dont think what follows them will be as committed as they are.

 

[ArmyJerry]

I despise Trump, and think him a NYC Democrat of the 70's, however, he is better than any of the fucks that were running against him, Dem or Repub (I was a Cruz supporter). He needs to crash the whole goddam establishment, and he is. If they over reach in their reaction to him, I guarantee there will be big violence, the likes of which this country aint seen since 1860, his supporters have been watching this insanity with a humorous smile til this point, Schumer and the establishment better start worrying about Trumps health because if anything happens to the guy it will be the last straw for many in this country.

For him to get me on board though he needs to force recipricosity on the states, like they did Gay marriage.

Get rid of Obama Care and not replace that socialist law

Build the goddam wall

Kick out DACA criminals

Sick his justice department on Clinton, Obama, Lynch, and any one else that has broken the law in DC.

 

[scharfschutze762]

Before anyone accuses me of being anti cop I have a couple of family members who are cops in commie states. Why is it in those commie states the average citizen cant own a semi auto rifle or suppressor but LEOs are allowed to purchase and own PERSONAL semi autos and YES! Suppressors? And yes this is fact.
Kinda off subject but this kind of double standards dont help the cause of the us vs you line either.

 

[pmclaine]

Before anyone accuses me of being anti cop I have a couple of family members who are cops in commie states. Why is it in those commie states the average citizen cant own a semi auto rifle or suppressor but LEOs are allowed to purchase and own PERSONAL semi autos and YES! Suppressors? And yes this is fact.

Divide and conquer.

Give rights to some and they will take rights away from others to keep theirs.

I can bet that in states that exempt there is straw buying going on and it ain't by the ATF to the cartels.

Once in state a "non list" or "ban " gun becomes legal for private sale. Lots of room for abuse there.

Too answer your question that exclusion is done on purpose and it's not to improve public safety.

 

[pmclaine]

I despise Trump, and think him a NYC Democrat of the 70's, however, he is better than any of the fucks that were running against him, Dem or Repub (I was a Cruz supporter). He needs to crash the whole goddam establishment, and he is. If they over reach in their reaction to him, I guarantee there will be big violence, the likes of which this country aint seen since 1860, his supporters have been watching this insanity with a humorous smile til this point, Schumer and the establishment better start worrying about Trumps health because if anything happens to the guy it will be the last straw for many in this country.

For him to get me on board though he needs to force recipricosity on the states, like they did Gay marriage.

Get rid of Obama Care and not replace that socialist law

Build the goddam wall

Kick out DACA criminals

Sick his justice department on Clinton, Obama, Lynch, and any one else that has broken the law in DC.

A New York Dem of the 70s is a John Birch Society officer compared to a socialist dem or McCain republican today.

 

[ArmyJerry]

yeap

 

[Sean the Nailer]

I despise Trump, and think him a NYC Democrat of the 70's, however, he is better than any of the fucks that were running against him, Dem or Repub (I was a Cruz supporter). He needs to crash the whole goddam establishment, and he is. If they over reach in their reaction to him, I guarantee there will be big violence, the likes of which this country aint seen since 1860, his supporters have been watching this insanity with a humorous smile til this point, Schumer and the establishment better start worrying about Trumps health because if anything happens to the guy it will be the last straw for many in this country.

For him to get me on board though he needs to force recipricosity on the states, like they did Gay marriage.

Get rid of Obama Care and not replace that socialist law

Build the goddam wall

Kick out DACA criminals

Sick his justice department on Clinton, Obama, Lynch, and any one else that has broken the law in DC.

Y'know, all differences aside, I have to honestly state that everything he says here is accurate. I agree with pretty much everything, except I don't 'despise' Trump. He's not affected me directly, as I'm aware of, and until he does he has the benefit of the doubt. I just pray that he runs your country like a successful business. He at least has experience in that, right? His business's might not ALL have been successful, but who can say all of theirs were? Always?

There may be hope yet.