What is Required to Save the nation!

[zelmo1234]

First my apologies for the last few months of being rather negative. It is not my usual MO but I have been very, very, very Frustrated.

But I just had to take a short trip to check on a Kitchen in progress, and passed a sign on a Church that said that the Truth will set you free. And nothing at this point could be a better game plan for the nation.

So lets create a starting point to work from and see if in fact we are too far gone? or if the Truth can Really be the Salvation of this Once Great Nation.

#1 Can we actually agree that we have a Deficit in Leadership in this Country. GWB, was bad, President Obama has been bad, Trump and Clinton both make GWB and Obama look pretty Good. Nancy and Harry were Terrible leaders and Now we have Mitch, and Ryan, and they suck too!

#2 We need to agree that our Foreign and Domestic policies are terrible and they have brought about terrible and dangerous results. We must agree that the nation can't keep going into debt, we have to agree that we can't police the world, we have to agree that the Government it too big and to bloated with wasteful spending and we all need to agree that drastic changes must be made. Can we start from this point of view.

#3 The economy is being killed by Taxation, Regulations, and Immigration polices. We have to agree that all need reform. We have to agree that the percentage of people not paying federal income tax is too large, and the people at the very, very top of the food chain likely have too many ways to prevent paying taxes. We have to agree that some of the Regulations are over the top and harmful and yet some are desperately needed. And we have to agree that we can't continue to have unlimited low skilled worker coming into the country and while we can't send them all home, they can't all stay either. We must stop the flow, punish the abusers on both sides of the system, and we must have an immigration policy that protects the borders and does not discriminate.

#4 Race Relations. This is a very, very hard topic, But we all need to agree on a few starting principles. First we all need to agree that Racism exists, and we all need to agree that the so named Race Card is way over played. We need to agree that sometimes the police are bad, and do commit wrongs and we need to agree to stop elevating Thugs and Criminals that seal their fate by committing crimes, to martyr status. We need to agree that the system is rigged against certain minorities, and we need to agree that many minority groups have gotten caught up in victim status and need to start helping themselves as well. We need to agree that the Racism of Groups does exist on both sides and should not be tolerated in any group or organization. Can we at least start here.

#5 Education (public) is broken, each year we get worse and worse. discipline has left the school building Teaching has been replaced with social engineering and Self Esteem promotion. This has the USA producing a generation of Idiots We need to agree that there are systems that need help and there are systems that need to be shut down. We need to agree that in places where there are bad systems and teachers, and there are bad teachers, the people need to have Voucher or alternative school programs need to be established to remove their children from those failing systems. We need to agree on standards based on Truth and agree that indoctrination has become a problem Can we start with this as being a fact.

#6 The Socials safety net system. This system that was designed to prevent those in the most dire of conditions from falling into starvation and homelessness. Has in fact turned into something that it was never designed to be. It needs to be reformed so people can and are encouraged to move in and out of it, and not be punished for taking short term employment. We need to agree that there are people that need help, but we need to agree that far more people abuse the system that we would like to think, This system needs to be reformed from a system of despair into a system of hope and empowerment

Setting these 6 goals as a starting point can we be honest with each other? Can we admit that our point of view when filtered through our own rose colored glasses is likely not reality? If we can then I believe that the country's best days are yet to come.

I will try in the future to use better tones and support my positions with Facts. I will agree to look at all other facts and admit when I am wrong. I will not agree to better spelling and Grammar :) and I will not tolerate lies and deception and you should not tolerate it from me.

Looking forward to better conversations in the future.

[Cigar]

Stop Obstructing

[Mac-7]

First my apologies for the last few months of being rather negative. It is not my usual MO but I have been very, very, very Frustrated.

But I just had to take a short trip to check on a Kitchen in progress, and passed a sign on a Church that said that the Truth will set you free. And nothing at this point could be a better game plan for the nation.

So lets create a starting point to work from and see if in fact we are too far gone? or if the Truth can Really be the Salvation of this Once Great Nation.

#1 Can we actually agree that we have a Deficit in Leadership in this Country. GWB, was bad, President Obama has been bad, Trump and Clinton both make GWB and Obama look pretty Good. Nancy and Harry were Terrible leaders and Now we have Mitch, and Ryan, and they suck too!

#2 We need to agree that our Foreign and Domestic policies are terrible and they have brought about terrible and dangerous results. We must agree that the nation can't keep going into debt, we have to agree that we can't police the world, we have to agree that the Government it too big and to bloated with wasteful spending and we all need to agree that drastic changes must be made. Can we start from this point of view.

#3 The economy is being killed by Taxation, Regulations, and Immigration polices. We have to agree that all need reform. We have to agree that the percentage of people not paying federal income tax is too large, and the people at the very, very top of the food chain likely have too many ways to prevent paying taxes. We have to agree that some of the Regulations are over the top and harmful and yet some are desperately needed. And we have to agree that we can't continue to have unlimited low skilled worker coming into the country and while we can't send them all home, they can't all stay either. We must stop the flow, punish the abusers on both sides of the system, and we must have an immigration policy that protects the borders and does not discriminate.

#4 Race Relations. This is a very, very hard topic, But we all need to agree on a few starting principles. First we all need to agree that Racism exists, and we all need to agree that the so named Race Card is way over played. We need to agree that sometimes the police are bad, and do commit wrongs and we need to agree to stop elevating Thugs and Criminals that seal their fate by committing crimes, to martyr status. We need to agree that the system is rigged against certain minorities, and we need to agree that many minority groups have gotten caught up in victim status and need to start helping themselves as well. We need to agree that the Racism of Groups does exist on both sides and should not be tolerated in any group or organization. Can we at least start here.

#5 Education (public) is broken, each year we get worse and worse. discipline has left the school building Teaching has been replaced with social engineering and Self Esteem promotion. This has the USA producing a generation of Idiots We need to agree that there are systems that need help and there are systems that need to be shut down. We need to agree that in places where there are bad systems and teachers, and there are bad teachers, the people need to have Voucher or alternative school programs need to be established to remove their children from those failing systems. We need to agree on standards based on Truth and agree that indoctrination has become a problem Can we start with this as being a fact.

#6 The Socials safety net system. This system that was designed to prevent those in the most dire of conditions from falling into starvation and homelessness. Has in fact turned into something that it was never designed to be. It needs to be reformed so people can and are encouraged to move in and out of it, and not be punished for taking short term employment. We need to agree that there are people that need help, but we need to agree that far more people abuse the system that we would like to think, This system needs to be reformed from a system of despair into a system of hope and empowerment

Setting these 6 goals as a starting point can we be honest with each other? Can we admit that our point of view when filtered through our own rose colored glasses is likely not reality? If we can then I believe that the country's best days are yet to come.

I will try in the future to use better tones and support my positions with Facts. I will agree to look at all other facts and admit when I am wrong. I will not agree to better spelling and Grammar :) and I will not tolerate lies and deception and you should not tolerate it from me.

Looking forward to better conversations in the future.

What I think you are suggesting trying to find common ground between left and right.



but liberals and conservatives are so deeply divided I dont think its possible.

if Hillary wins the left will force their agenda on us without any attempt at bipartisanship

[NapRover]

Stop Obstructing
And...cave in to whatever Obama wants? A bit of compromise from him would go a long way, but he just doesn't have it in him. He is all demand, no give. It makes us want to dig in deeper and fight harder. So counterproductive.

[zelmo1234]

Stop Obstructing

And I can see this Cigar but your side needs to post the actual items that you believe have been Obstructed.

I think that if you look as see, you will find that President Obama has been very good at getting his programs approved. Not all of them but most.

I have asked many, many, many times for people to list the most important items that have been blocked and those that support him never list any items.

So that accusation becomes part of the problem, because if you can't tell me what is being blocked and why it is important, then it is just a talking point, that is designed to divide the country.

So there is a chance that I would agree with you but I need to know what you feel is being blocked that would really make a difference.

[Mini Me]

Ahah! The new, improved Zelmo! Same as the old Zelmo!

I'll give you a ++ for intent. Well see how it goes!

[Standing Wolf]

I hope I can find the time a bit later to respond directly to the OP, Z. It seems to me, just at a first reading, to be very well thought out and organized. A rarity on this forum for a post of that length, if I may say. Just for now, I'll say this, vis-à-vis obstruction: to keep a sitting President, with nearly a year left in his term of office, from having a Supreme Court justice considered for confirmation by the Senate is inexcusable. It reveals a mindset that puts partisanship ahead of the work and welfare of this country.

[Mac-7]

I hope I can find the time a bit later to respond directly to the OP, Z. It seems to me, just at a first reading, to be very well thought out and organized. A rarity on this forum for a post of that length, if I may say. Just for now, I'll say this, vis-à-vis obstruction: to keep a sitting President, with nearly a year left in his term of office, from having a Supreme Court justice considered for confirmation by the Senate is inexcusable. It reveals a mindset that puts partisanship ahead of the work and welfare of this country.

Most of the damage the left has done to America has come through the unelected liberal judges legislating from the bench.

it took conservative republicans several generations to wake up to how important having the right judges are but we cant afford to allow liberals to pack the court with activist judges any longer

[zelmo1234]

Ahah! The new, improved Zelmo! Same as the old Zelmo!

I'll give you a ++ for intent. Well see how it goes!


Well I think it will go better if some people?? Such as your self, would actually try and address an issue

[zelmo1234]

I hope I can find the time a bit later to respond directly to the OP, Z. It seems to me, just at a first reading, to be very well thought out and organized. A rarity on this forum for a post of that length, if I may say. Just for now, I'll say this, vis-à-vis obstruction: to keep a sitting President, with nearly a year left in his term of office, from having a Supreme Court justice considered for confirmation by the Senate is inexcusable. It reveals a mindset that puts partisanship ahead of the work and welfare of this country.

And I think that one could make that argument on the Justice? However; being that the Democrats used the same Sorry excuse just a few years back, it makes it very, very hard to Say that with any amount of credibility.

Also Certainly The President could have his justice by appointing a constitutionalist. But that is not what he did. He appointed someone that is Centrist on most issue but has voted against the 2nd amendment on several occasions.

That being said the right thing for the Senate to do was to hole hearings and Not give their consent. Then the President could have made another selection. But clearly this one is not just as simple as saying do your job, because of the shoe now being on the other foot so to speak.

[zelmo1234]

Most of the damage the left has done to America has come through the unelected liberal judges legislating from the bench.

it took conservative republicans several generations to wake up to how important having the right judges are but we cant afford to allow liberals to pack the court with activist judges any longer

But Advice and Consent is the responsibility of the Senate. They should have had the hearings and Voted against the Judge. That would have stopped all of the complaints. Now the left would not have been happy with that either, but the Senate is not required to rubber stamp the Presidents Choice. It is within their power to refuse the nominee.

[Cletus]

I hope I can find the time a bit later to respond directly to the OP, Z. It seems to me, just at a first reading, to be very well thought out and organized. A rarity on this forum for a post of that length, if I may say. Just for now, I'll say this, vis-à-vis obstruction: to keep a sitting President, with nearly a year left in his term of office, from having a Supreme Court justice considered for confirmation by the Senate is inexcusable. It reveals a mindset that puts partisanship ahead of the work and welfare of this country.

I don't agree. The Senate is under no obligation to vote on all the President's nominees for office. Since this guy has been summarily rejected, maybe Obama should float another candidate... one more acceptable to the Senate.

[Mac-7]

But Advice and Consent is the responsibility of the Senate. They should have had the hearings and Voted against the Judge. That would have stopped all of the complaints. Now the left would not have been happy with that either, but the Senate is not required to rubber stamp the Presidents Choice. It is within their power to refuse the nominee.

The left would still complain as long as the guy was not confirmed.

but I think there would be more pressure with a hearing than without

[Docthehun]

I'm curious; just where in the Constitution did it stipulate the makeup of the Supreme Court? I'm also having difficulty even finding the words, Conservative or Liberal. Did I miss the fine print?

[Safety]

I'm curious; just where in the Constitution did it stipulate the makeup of the Supreme Court? I'm also having difficulty even finding the words, Conservative or Liberal. Did I miss the fine print?

Evidently, it's ok to stack the court with conservative justices, but to stack it with liberals would mean Armageddon..

[Mac-7]

Evidently, it's ok to stack the court with conservative justices, but to stack it with liberals would mean Armageddon..

Obviously you do not think its ok to pack the court with conservatives either.

Which is why lefties would do the same or worse to block a 5th conservative judge if the shoe were on the other foot.

But its not.

your mouth is watering at the thought of a solid 6-3 liberal court.

[Peter1469]

Stop Obstructing

Before they dumbed down public schools, they use to teach about separation of powers.

This is a hard topic. But it basically means we don't want the government to pass everything that pops into Congress's head easily.

[Safety]

Obviously you do not think its ok to pack the court with conservatives either.

Which is why lefties would do the same or worse to block a 5th conservative judge if the shoe were on the other foot.

But its not.

your mouth is watering at the thought of a solid 6-3 liberal court.
Obviously? That's amazing considering you have never seen me advocate either way, in fact, I would like the justices to have no political affiliation.

[Mac-7]

Obviously? That's amazing considering you have never seen me advocate either way, in fact, I would like the justices to have no political affiliation.

You want whatever obumer and hillary want.

[Subdermal]

Obviously? That's amazing considering you have never seen me advocate either way, in fact, I would like the justices to have no political affiliation.

Conservative Justices are called such because they have no political affiliation - or none which they allow to cross over into their proper understanding of what a jurist is supposed to do. They're called 'Conservative' because they're Originalists, which means that they understand the difference between hearing cases brought before them through the prism of the existing words in the Constitution only; referring to Congress any need to pass a law if the Constitution doesn't expressly address the particular topic brought before them (read: gay marriage, abortion, etc) - and deciding for themselves these laws, regardless what the Constitution does not address.

The latter makes them political - and liberal. And anti-Constitutional; anti-American, and dangerous.

Conservatives understand and respect the Constitution, and understand the proper role of SCOTUS. As such, they support only 'conservative' justices, who believe the same thing.

[Truth Detector]

Stop Obstructing

:rofl:

[zelmo1234]

Evidently, it's ok to stack the court with conservative justices, but to stack it with liberals would mean Armageddon..

Actually, if we are honest, Stacking the court with anyone other than someone that reads the constitution and interprets it to the letter of the law, is what got the USA into the mess that we are in.

If we would have had people that would say, Yes is says right here that the Federal government can do this, or NO it is not in the constitution, it is up to the States? We would have been better off.

Citizens United and the ACA decisions are examples of terrible rulings that were politically motivated. One by each side.

But as a nation we don't want to face the truth and hold the Justices accountable through demanded legislation, so we keep getting legislation from the bench.

[zelmo1234]

Conservative Justices are called such because they have no political affiliation - or none which they allow to cross over into their proper understanding of what a jurist is supposed to do. They're called 'Conservative' because they're Originalists, which means that they understand the difference between hearing cases brought before them through the prism of the existing words in the Constitution only; referring to Congress any need to pass a law if the Constitution doesn't expressly address the particular topic brought before them (read: gay marriage, abortion, etc) - and deciding for themselves these laws, regardless what the Constitution does not address.

The latter makes them political - and liberal. And anti-Constitutional; anti-American, and dangerous.

Conservatives understand and respect the Constitution, and understand the proper role of SCOTUS. As such, they support only 'conservative' justices, who believe the same thing.

Once I would have agreed with you But Roberts and Kennedy are called Conservative Justices and they certainly advocate legislation from the bench. So if in Fact we want to face the Truth there was only one Origionalist on the court and he passes away. Thomas is the closest to that at this point

[Safety]

You want whatever obumer and hillary want.
Now you've been reduced to babbling.

[Safety]

Conservative Justices are called such because they have no political affiliation - or none which they allow to cross over into their proper understanding of what a jurist is supposed to do. They're called 'Conservative' because they're Originalists, which means that they understand the difference between hearing cases brought before them through the prism of the existing words in the Constitution only; referring to Congress any need to pass a law if the Constitution doesn't expressly address the particular topic brought before them (read: gay marriage, abortion, etc) - and deciding for themselves these laws, regardless what the Constitution does not address.

The latter makes them political - and liberal. And anti-Constitutional; anti-American, and dangerous.

Conservatives understand and respect the Constitution, and understand the proper role of SCOTUS. As such, they support only 'conservative' justices, who believe the same thing.
Partisanship has blinded you so much, you create definitions now.

[AeonPax]

`
`
I generally agree with all of the listed points here. Way too many variables though, but one of my on certitudes is that the answer lays outside of our "for profit, "party before country" Democrat - Republican parties or just the "Republicrat Party."

[Standing Wolf]

And I think that one could make that argument on the Justice? However; being that the Democrats used the same Sorry excuse just a few years back, it makes it very, very hard to Say that with any amount of credibility.

"Just a few years back" was 1992. The Senator urging his colleagues to hold off on holding hearings on a possible Supreme Court nominee was one man - Joe Biden - and he was doing so on a purely theoretical basis, as there was no vacancy on the high court at the time; in any case, the Senate at the time was under Democratic control. The two situations are about as far from being comparable as it is possible to be.


Also Certainly The President could have his justice by appointing a constitutionalist. But that is not what he did. He appointed someone that is Centrist on most issue but has voted against the 2nd amendment on several occasions.

Judge Garland has been widely and enthusiastically praised as a jurist by the very "men" who are now childishly stonewalling his nomination. His alleged issues with the Second Amendment are vastly exaggerated.


That being said the right thing for the Senate to do was to hole hearings and Not give their consent. Then the President could have made another selection. But clearly this one is not just as simple as saying do your job, because of the shoe now being on the other foot so to speak.

But as I noted earlier, the situations are not even remotely comparable. Twenty-four years ago, you had one politician with a proposal that may or may not have been adopted by his colleagues had the occasion arisen; today, we see a cabal of bitter, partisan hacks actually carrying it off and doing their level best to get in one last jab at a President whose every effort they swore to oppose the very day he was inaugurated.

[Standing Wolf]

Conservative Justices are called such because they have no political affiliation - or none which they allow to cross over into their proper understanding of what a jurist is supposed to do.

I suspect that you consider the late Justice Scalia to have been a "Conservative Justice" by your definition. I would just invite you to do some reading about his record on the bench - the causes, positions and entities that he invariably favored and why. The man was rabidly partisan for his entire career, to the point where it was embarrassing to everyone but himself.

[Mac-7]

Now you've been reduced to babbling.

Not at all.

you pretend to be bi-partisan or non-partisan but thats just a scam.

you're a lib through and through

[Mac-7]

"Just a few years back" was 1992. The Senator urging his colleagues to hold off on holding hearings on a possible Supreme Court nominee was one man - Joe Biden - and he was doing so on a purely theoretical basis, as there was no vacancy on the high court at the time; in any case, the Senate at the time was under Democratic control. The two situations are about as far from being comparable as it is possible to be.



Judge Garland has been widely and enthusiastically praised as a jurist by the very "men" who are now childishly stonewalling his nomination. His alleged issues with the Second Amendment are vastly exaggerated.



But as I noted earlier, the situations are not even remotely comparable. Twenty-four years ago, you had one politician with a proposal that may or may not have been adopted by his colleagues had the occasion arisen; today, we see

a cabal of bitter, partisan hacks actually carrying it off and doing their level best to get in one last jab at a President whose every effort they swore to oppose

the very day he was inaugurated.

Liberals personalize everything

Obama wants to pack the court with liberals who will shred the 2nd Amendment.



That will harm so many people that you cant trivialize it by saying republicans jus dont like no black folk.

[Mac-7]

Of course if the polls hold true hillary will win and be able to appoint an even more far left judge.

so law abiding gun owners may be screwed either way

[zelmo1234]

"Just a few years back" was 1992. The Senator urging his colleagues to hold off on holding hearings on a possible Supreme Court nominee was one man - Joe Biden - and he was doing so on a purely theoretical basis, as there was no vacancy on the high court at the time; in any case, the Senate at the time was under Democratic control. The two situations are about as far from being comparable as it is possible to be.

Judge Garland has been widely and enthusiastically praised as a jurist by the very "men" who are now childishly stonewalling his nomination. His alleged issues with the Second Amendment are vastly exaggerated.

But as I noted earlier, the situations are not even remotely comparable. Twenty-four years ago, you had one politician with a proposal that may or may not have been adopted by his colleagues had the occasion arisen; today, we see a cabal of bitter, partisan hacks actually carrying it off and doing their level best to get in one last jab at a President whose every effort they swore to oppose the very day he was inaugurated.

OK so clearly we don't have to Go back to good ole Joe and we have Democrats on Record in 2007 saying the same thing

http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/02/17/democrats-stunning-hypocrisy-blocking-supreme-court-nominees/

So if you think it was only Joe Biden, you are miss informed. So getting back to the truth we know that the Democrats would be doing the exact same thing. NOT SAYING that It is right!

Garland has been on what pro second amendment folks would call the wrong side in nearly all of his decisions. The only way that this nominee had a chance of being confirmed is if the President would have sought the advice of the Senate. They could have provided a list of choices that they found acceptable and the President could have made that selection. This President never Sought the Advice part of the agreement.

As for Praising people Trump was a media darling until he got the nomination.

And your Statement about Obstruction? Other than this justice, what is the biggest thing that you believe the GOP blocked Obama from doing, and how would that have helped the country?

As far as our Scalia? He was as close to a constitutional justice as we had on the Bench, NOT perfect, but he certainly did not try an rewrite the constitution.

So you post above was a bit tainted by partisanship! And not exactly True. That will not work if we are to start moving forward as a nation.

[Safety]

Not at all.

you pretend to be bi-partisan or non-partisan but thats just a scam.

you're a lib through and through

The next time I want to solicit your opinion, I'll give it to you.

[Bo-4]

Not that i agree with all of it .. but good post.

What i disagree with most is your sub line - i don't particularly believe that the nation needs "saving".

Lot of tweaks? -- yep .. saving, no.

[Captain Obvious]

This nation is already lost.

[Mac-7]

This nation is already lost.

What is happening in Venezula now could happen in America under a one party socislist democrat dictatorship

and that is where we are headed

[Bethere]

First my apologies for the last few months of being rather negative. It is not my usual MO but I have been very, very, very Frustrated.

But I just had to take a short trip to check on a Kitchen in progress, and passed a sign on a Church that said that the Truth will set you free. And nothing at this point could be a better game plan for the nation.

So lets create a starting point to work from and see if in fact we are too far gone? or if the Truth can Really be the Salvation of this Once Great Nation.

#1 Can we actually agree that we have a Deficit in Leadership in this Country. GWB, was bad, President Obama has been bad, Trump and Clinton both make GWB and Obama look pretty Good. Nancy and Harry were Terrible leaders and Now we have Mitch, and Ryan, and they suck too!

#2 We need to agree that our Foreign and Domestic policies are terrible and they have brought about terrible and dangerous results. We must agree that the nation can't keep going into debt, we have to agree that we can't police the world, we have to agree that the Government it too big and to bloated with wasteful spending and we all need to agree that drastic changes must be made. Can we start from this point of view.

#3 The economy is being killed by Taxation, Regulations, and Immigration polices. We have to agree that all need reform. We have to agree that the percentage of people not paying federal income tax is too large, and the people at the very, very top of the food chain likely have too many ways to prevent paying taxes. We have to agree that some of the Regulations are over the top and harmful and yet some are desperately needed. And we have to agree that we can't continue to have unlimited low skilled worker coming into the country and while we can't send them all home, they can't all stay either. We must stop the flow, punish the abusers on both sides of the system, and we must have an immigration policy that protects the borders and does not discriminate.

#4 Race Relations. This is a very, very hard topic, But we all need to agree on a few starting principles. First we all need to agree that Racism exists, and we all need to agree that the so named Race Card is way over played. We need to agree that sometimes the police are bad, and do commit wrongs and we need to agree to stop elevating Thugs and Criminals that seal their fate by committing crimes, to martyr status. We need to agree that the system is rigged against certain minorities, and we need to agree that many minority groups have gotten caught up in victim status and need to start helping themselves as well. We need to agree that the Racism of Groups does exist on both sides and should not be tolerated in any group or organization. Can we at least start here.

#5 Education (public) is broken, each year we get worse and worse. discipline has left the school building Teaching has been replaced with social engineering and Self Esteem promotion. This has the USA producing a generation of Idiots We need to agree that there are systems that need help and there are systems that need to be shut down. We need to agree that in places where there are bad systems and teachers, and there are bad teachers, the people need to have Voucher or alternative school programs need to be established to remove their children from those failing systems. We need to agree on standards based on Truth and agree that indoctrination has become a problem Can we start with this as being a fact.

#6 The Socials safety net system. This system that was designed to prevent those in the most dire of conditions from falling into starvation and homelessness. Has in fact turned into something that it was never designed to be. It needs to be reformed so people can and are encouraged to move in and out of it, and not be punished for taking short term employment. We need to agree that there are people that need help, but we need to agree that far more people abuse the system that we would like to think, This system needs to be reformed from a system of despair into a system of hope and empowerment

Setting these 6 goals as a starting point can we be honest with each other? Can we admit that our point of view when filtered through our own rose colored glasses is likely not reality? If we can then I believe that the country's best days are yet to come.

I will try in the future to use better tones and support my positions with Facts. I will agree to look at all other facts and admit when I am wrong. I will not agree to better spelling and Grammar :) and I will not tolerate lies and deception and you should not tolerate it from me.

Looking forward to better conversations in the future.

I'll keep an open mind, but the proof is in the pudding.

[DGUtley]

Most of the damage the left has done to America has come through the unelected liberal judges legislating from the bench.

it took conservative republicans several generations to wake up to how important having the right judges are but we cant afford to allow liberals to pack the court with activist judges any longer

In my opinion, the critical issue in this election is the Supreme Court. Everything else can be undone in four years. The court will take 50+ years to undo when you consider duration of terms and precedent. Elections have consequences. A far left court will shove the rest of the liberal agenda down our throat rather than letting the country work through these changes. Do you see a far left court mandating the federal government enforce the borders? If for no other reason, protect the court.