Yep, and that fact is a heartbreaker. The U.S. could be gone, as constituted.
No way man… “We are a fighting people” as it says in the movie ‘The Quiet Man’ 
We will persevere! 
Our country and our world will move on. Let’s look upon the positive of humanity as opposed to the negativity of politics 
We will progress and over come in spite of progressive liberals and grass root conservatives.
It’s good to remind ourselves about a key issue. Remember the US Nat’l debt clock? This one is the same type of thing, using abortion stats. There are notes below the clock.
Which candidate stands proudly behind these numbers?
numberofabortions.com/
And too little too late, but here is a short article directed at those who sincerely are inclusivist, on the side of the poor, and other admirable liberal objectives:
Suppose I want to convince you of something. I must use premises that you accept. For if I argue from premises that you do not accept, you will reject my argument no matter how rigorous and cogent my reasoning.
So how can we get through to those liberals who are willing to listen? Not by invoking any Bible-based or theological premises. And not by deploying the sorts of non-theological but intellectually demanding arguments found in my Abortion category. The demands are simply too great for most people in this dumbed-down age.
Liberals support inclusivity and non-discrimination. Although contemporary liberals abuse these notions, as I have documented time and again, the notions possess a sound core and can be deployed sensibly. To take one example, there is simply no defensible basis for discrimination against women and blacks when it comes to voting. The reforms in this area were liberal reforms, and liberals can be proud of them. A sound conservatism, by the way, takes on board the genuine achievements of old-time liberals.
Another admirable feature of liberals is that they speak for the poor, the weak, the voiceless. That this is often twisted into the knee-jerk defense of every underdog just in virtue of his being an underdog, as if weakness confers moral superiority, is no argument against the admirableness of the feature when reasonably deployed.
So say this to the decent liberals: If you prize inclusivity, then include unborn human beings. If you oppose discrimination, why discriminate against them? If you speak for the poor, the weak, and the voiceless, why do you not speak for them? -MavPhil
Hey, Dave. Let’s go back to what you said about Trump. You implied nookie was OK. But Donald is a married man. And he appears to be attempting to fool around, from the women coming forth. Now a man (or woman) might not be trusted to honor a marriage commitment. How can they be truthful or trustworthy in other matters? Of course, these same concerns apply to Bill C.
I did not mean to give anyone a pass on nookie outside of marriage. What I said was a quote from Ablow:
"On another note, from Dr. Ablow:
"And while we debate who touched whom and when and where and if at all, our enemies can be plotting to blow us up.
And while we talk about a candidate’s genitals, we might miss the fact that the candidate has been talking about bringing us back to reality in more productive ways — like getting us back to work, restoring the physical borders that define our nation, delivering lifesaving health care to our ailing and dying veterans and arming our military against radical Islamic terrorism.
As far as I’m concerned, I’d like to watch all that happen, instead of watching adult entertainment that masquerades as news."
And he makes a good point.
Understood, and well said.
I hate to be picky (not 
) - but it’s now LGBTQQ1. 
But qaz u said:
The problem with the safety net is that someone has to pay. It always falls to the working middle man. The under privileged receive, the rich have ties (influence) that exempt them from paying. The middle man loses every time. Until someone comes along and recognizes the plight of the working man, we will have what we have. 
Gosh… I am sounding like a union organizer.
Hi Dave, it is possible and rather common, I think, to be conservative in some areas, and liberal in others.
For example, I am fiscally liberal, in that I applaud government programs to assist the needy at the expense of the super rich by means of appropriate federal and state tax systems. (In my case federal and provincial tax systems, since I live in Canada.)
However, morally I am Conservative, opposed to abortion, and especially infanticide (euphemistically called “partial birth abortion”). I would also reserve the term “marriage” for an agreement between a man and a woman. I would probably grant same-sex couples the same monetary rights as a married couple, but would not permit the term “married” to be applied. If such a couple wanted a legal agreement between them, the government could allow it but such an agreement would have to be given some such appellation as “civic union.”
Paidion, I think you’re right about most of us having a mix of views.
A couple of things I would say, though: the word ‘needy’ has been well and truly corrupted in the U.S. Refugees that are pouring in are all ‘needy’ - how far do we go in meeting their needs? Should they get priority over those who have entered legally or those who are patiently waiting in line to become citizens?
I’m thinking that we need an heirarchy of values.
- National security - that’s a no-brainer: there is no America once we allow ourselves to be overcome by an enemy. Period. I see no way out of making that THE first priority national need. We have to have a nation.
2, Borders - we cannot allow just anyone in. We have enemies. Read “Day of Wrath” by Wm. Fortschen (amazon.com/Day-Wrath-Willia … B00MU1NNRO) - where it is demonstrated how 100 ISIS followers who are already in country, could in one day bring down the US using only handguns and rifles. A short book worth reading. Or his “One Second After” showing the US reduced to a near iron-age in the one second following an EMP. My point being that America is fragile in th
is new age of terrorism, and we must have a candidate who understands that.
Good lord - look what Obama hath wrought with Iran - he gave them the keys to the kingdom and I don’t know why. But we are more in danger now.
Not enforcing borders is suicide.
What is WRONG with an actual, real vetting process? - Constitutional procedures - the rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness. The amendments. Checks and balances on the power brokers.
I’m getting a bit sad just thinking about it. Hillary will weaken us unmeasurably in those 3 areas and many more - and not because she is an idealogue, but because she is a dishonest, lying human being. Trump would be better? In those 3 things - probably.
We have to have a nation, constituted by something other than the appetities, greed and whims of fallen people, or we give everything over to the faux-needy. (I am of course in favor of helping out the widows and orphans etc.)
http://m.likesuccess.com/quotes/31/1532056.png
http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/kilby-nonsequitur.gif
or
Did I say that 
Are you sure If so, I must have been visiting, one of the Colorado, recreational pot shops 
I agree with you. The problem with a forum like this is that people outside the U.S. weigh in. No offence, but they don’t have a dog in this hunt. But the opinions can be enlightening! 
qaz said
CNBC SAYS: 1/15/2015
The working man is getting slaughtered.
qaz said:
The problem is, is that I have no interest in re-integrating thieves and murderers at my expense, that falls to their repentance and working their way back into societies graces. I think you have given your view on repentance in earlier posts.
The above said article, mirrors the federal income tax laws and practices, because as we all know, state taxes are derived from our federal tax liability.
Sorry Charlie, you have lost! 
Sure they do. They not only have a dog - but a cat, also. Depending on who’s elected, could effect the relationships, between the country they live in and the US.
I have read that confiscating all the money of the upper 1% in America would not pay next year’s deficits. And then that money would be gone.
There is NO doubt that grabbing other people’s money and giving it to those in ‘need’ - and I use that term very loosely - will ‘help’ those neeAs in Obamacare, where many millions are able to have care only because the middle-class pays the back-breaking deductibles and premiums to provide subsidies to the needy. Maybe you think that is fair. I do not think that either grabbing the money of the rich, nor crushing the middle class even more, is ethical or practical, in the long run.
Here’s something though: what about if each family JUST TOOK CARE OF THEMSELVES? Just that. Keep the old folks at home and take care of them. Like the Waltons.
And STAY MARRIED, for God’s sake, and don’t leave black women with no husbands and a bunch of kids - who we then get to pay for; a reward in a way for a dissipate lifestyle.
There are many steps like those that do not involve the unethical grabbing of another’s goods or wealth. Why should the taxpayers pay for the sins and lifestyle of the many?
Widows and orphans, yes. True hardship - well if the family cannot help, I guess the taxpayers will. If we are lucky, we will keep the rich and their money in this country. Their money is not responsible for my lack of it, to bring it close to home.
read my edited reply 
You are right but they can not vote, and their interest’s are as outsiders, much as Brexit would be to me if I had interests in country.