Can you guys play nice?...I appreciate the points but this has gone on for days with no resolution.

No not emotional...observational! I've seen and read all that, bottom line is his Character is lacking. He acts like a child..and that means he's not 100% trustworthy. Haven't we had enough of child like idiots in government...wouldn't you like to have conscious human adults representing us for a change?

There is a lot more going on with putin and russia...trump seems always to associate with many shady characters.

All things work together for good. The fact that Cruz and his supporters were so vocal put pressure on Trump to pick a conservative on the ticket. Pence is as good as Cruz; different, but good. Cruz didn't have the popularity, and if he really wants to see some progress in this country, he should be glad at least we have one conservative on the ticket. It's tough for him, but he was dealing with a tough guy. The complaint from voters is we haven't been tough enough.

This quotes been getting alot of use lately but it does apply.

"When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”
Adolf Hitler
Speech November 1933, quoted in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer

and here we are...to what end?

Spot on! Unfortunately thanks to the stupidity of the American electorate, we were saddled with Bush, Obama and now either Trump or Clinton. We have truly hit the bottom of the barrel if you ask me!

With this election, one can say that the chickens are coming home to roost and we are getting exactly what we deserve. This is what happens when you now have generations of brainwashed people who vote by soundbite alone or on the promise of getting something for nothing! What a country!!!
Ayn must be spinning in her grave to see how far we have fallen!!!!! They who live by the 30 second soundbite will suffer by the 30 second soundbite as well. Just like this "Law and Order" garbage (remind you of Adolf Hitler's Nazis Germany??). That and the willingness of people to toss away their freedoms based upon some vague promise of security and/or justice. Ben Franklin warned us of that trap so, beware that "soundbite" that sounds so good!

Will people ever learn or, are we doomed to keep making these same idiotic mistakes!?

"Fog of Righteousness"? Interesting take on my uttering just a "Simple" Truth that should be evident to anyone who understands the workings of the world, especially American politics!

It is obvious that you do not fully understand what a President can do and what they cannot on their own volition!

You should realize that Obama had both the House and Senate under Progressive Democrat control. They did his bidding because they were of the same mind as he was!

The Republicans on the other hand can't even figure out what they believe in let alone be willing to unite behind Trump. Most Rs that he will have to deal with hate him for various reasons....you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out now do you?

The only way he will be able to get much of what he is "promising" the unwashed masses are beyond his capability (and wealth). He will have to wait for the electorate to provide him "like-minded" Congressman and women in both the House and the Senate in order to ramrod through his "stated" agenda!

Correct me if I am wrong about the lawful process including the advise and consent of congress and the sad fact that the other leg of the triad being the judiciary will not just roll over for his bluster. That! Is the sad fact of life! Unless that is you know of some other way (legal of course)......

You’re being logical while I’m being ideological? I’m not the one trying to analyze your motives. I’m not the one trying to argue the merits or drawbacks of anyone’s sexual orientation, I’m arguing whether government has the right to set up a privileged class based on factors that are irrelevant to the privileges being conferred. To the extent that this is ideological, it is the ideology of individual rights and equal treatment under the law, a core principle of Objectivism.

And I notice that you did not attempt to refute a single thing I said in my previous post.

DT is another O, "make America great again" is just as empty as "Hope and change", in fact its the same exact sentiment. It really doesn't matter which one you get. DT or HC, because they are different sides of the same crappy coin fished out of the sewer drain.

Hate has nothing to do with my view. Reality does. DT helped make this problem what it is by funding all the politicians he's against now. But hey, lets put all that aside because today he says he's conservative, he's republican (his kids aren't) and he's upset with DC (even though he profited from sinking millions into their pockets and pal'ed around with them).

He's going to flip on everything an anything he promised within a year if elected. Why? Hope and change...errr make America great again.

Dream on in your fog of righteousness...you will have 8 years of Hillary to sober you up back to the reality world. enjoy your petty hatred of Trump and look forward o more socialist-democrat tyranny.

Then you may as well resign your proud self to being ''Forever Hillary" that's your choice,,,good luck.

Cruz (and the rest of them) were stupid to promise to endorse the nominee without knowing who it would be.
2. Once you have given your word, if you have any integrity at all, you keep it.
3. Kasich is as guilty as Cruz.
I should have said STUPID a bit louder ;-)

That said, the real stupidity is going on right now at the D convention. Not one of them know TANSTAAFL and they all promise it!

His use of eminent domain and bankruptcies, never mind his sleeping with the creatures that have caused all the problems we face now. His disloyalty to his wives kind of bothers me too...all of it reflex's upon his character. He also seems to choose the worst of characters to associate with. Recently it has be discovered that his advisers have ties to Russia and a few shady creatures like Duggan and Putin...Now that's not saying he knows or is complicit, I think he is just a poor judge of people...just like the rest of the left.
You can vet these out yourself, most is public knowledge.
There is much that can't be substantiated therefore is not even worth our time.

Your statements attempting to turn my own words on their heads presupposes an applicability of logic which I have not only expressly rejected on premise alone, but demonstrated through logic to be patently false. You can't even argue on the merits of homosexuality itself - instead being forced to rely solely on a false equivalency. I will say to you what I have said ad nauseum: the Fourteenth Amendment is not applicable in the case of gay marriage because it fails not just one, but both of the necessary prongs of the test. Deny this at your own logical peril.

To answer your question: yes, heterosexual couples do enjoy privileges homosexual couples do not. Differences - material differences - exist which can be denied only by a denier of reality itself: potential for natural children, complementary sex organs, and participants' gender just to name three MAJOR ones! In order to equate heterosexual marriage to homosexual marriage, you must choose to ignore all of this - and more.

Discrimination is only unjust when there is a false evaluation of non-equivalency. You have chosen to ignore all the differences and focus on only the minor similarities, claiming that because there are similarities the differences are irrelevant. This is simply self-deception. That you are so willing to set aside these very blatant and obvious differences in pursuit of claiming equivalency tells me that this is an ideological issue to you - rather than a logical one. You aren't arguing to come to a logical outcome, you want to argue to justify your position in your own mind. That's a battle you must fight with yourself but also a battle in which I refuse to act as proxy any longer.

agreed...the one thing I always wanted to ask some of these creatures is...Don't you live here too! Are you willing to sacrifice your own safety and future for the stupid things you think and do?
Do you really think you won't be effected?

I would doubt that they could honestly answer those questions because they are not capable of thinking nor accounting for their decisions...if we were to call it that...not sure how not having a mind, nevermind a brain works in practice.

Hot_Black_Desiato, that is an insightful point.

There are other virtues in Ayn Rand's moral objectivism code. One such virtue is 'integrity.'
If the POTUS agrees to fill a job that requires improving the US, s/he is under the spotlight to fulfill his promise. If he then acts contrary to this "to line his pockets," he should be at risk of breaching contract, and is certainly at risk of losing his reputation and self-respect. Ayn Rand's paramour Nathaniel Brandon explains the link between integrity and self-respect.

My point is that a person who agrees to become president and take the presidential vows has a self-interest to act in the best interest of the country, at least as far as his job description is concerned.

I see the same argument every four years, just with different names. I quit buying into the two-party game decades ago.

A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson. A is A. Many Democrats are planning to vote for Johnson. Does this mean that a vote for Johnson is a vote for Trump?

Re-read your earlier statement: “One can only legally ‘intervene’ where one has authority to do so. It doesn't make it right for the States to engage in racism in public schooling, but one wrong doesn't justify another.” You were talking specifically about segregated schools, not gay marriage, and you specifically said it was “wrong” for the Federal government to intervene because they had no authority to do so. Now you appear to have changed your position on the issue, based on the 14th Amendment.

Re: “There is no equivalency between the black rights movement and the gay marriage movement.” Sure there is. For starters there is your statement that states “absolutely do have a duty under the Fourteenth Amendment (emphasis yours) to extend the same privileges to all citizens and that the Federal Government as arbiter of Constitutional questions remains the last bastion of protection for these rights.” This applies as much to marriage as to schools. Several states attempted to create a privileged class – “married couples” – that deliberately excludes gay couples. Many states attempted to shoehorn gay couples into a separate legal category, “civil unions”, equivalent to the bogus “separate but equal” schools that were established in the South. Some gay couples protested, and the U.S. Supreme Court, as “as arbiter of Constitutional questions” and the “the last bastion of protection” against overreach by the states, correctly ruled in the gay couples’ favor.

Not only is there “equivalency between the black rights movement and the gay marriage movement,” that equivalency is glaringly obvious. In both cases, states are attempting to create a privileged class of citizens, one based on race and the other based on sexual orientation, in disregard of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. In both cases, the Supreme Court has correctly ruled that states cannot do this.

As you say, contracts are not rights, but there is certainly a right to make a contract, and if the state grants special privileges to those who enter into certain types of contracts, it does not have the right to discriminate among those who wish to do so. And while “the conditions of a heterosexual marriage and that of a homosexual ‘marriage’ are very different and in the most material ways”, the privileges conferred by state recognition of a marriage contract are identical, including those that relate to inheritance, social security, immunity from testimony against a spouse, joint tax returns, eligibility for a spouse’s employer-based health insurance, decision-making if a spouse is incapacitated, and many others.