Proud to be an American

[WLC]

uh huh. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

I stuck it out for eight years so please give it some time Mr. Negitive! If you look at the title of this thread and don't agree, LEAVE!

[WLC]

Hoping Trump can make America great again. Liked the rally and speeches this week.

[Cowpie]

Since DT got elected, I have been cautiously optimistic, but not hopeful. I didn't vote for him, and there nothing that has convinced me I should have. No... didn't vote for Hillary either. I went with an alternative.

 

To make America great again, one has to have a firm grasp on what made it great to begin with. I haven't seen enough evidence that DT has a good grasp of history to understand that. He sure has a poor understanding of civics and the differentiation between branches of government, their role as laid out in the Constitution along with their authority. But then, most people are in the same camp. The Constitution is a short, simple document to read and the majority of folks haven't read it but rely on someone else to tell them what it says. Combined with the Declaration of Independence, they lay out the who America is and what America is. And what we have today really doesn't come close.

[Colossus]

amen.

[pSYCLONE]

Never saw one in my 30yrs till I moved to the PNW. Now, I'm terrified the ones nesting in front of my house will make a meal out of my schweenie.

 

That said, it is awesome though when you make a half-assed attempt at their whistle and you get a response.

[WLC]

Most people cannot name the three branches of our govt.

[KARNUT]

Not get in the weeds, give him a year I think you'll be surprised. Two points to consider, he raised great kids, hard to do if you're a billionaire. Point two he's not dumb knowing the push back he was going to get if elected and the fact he went from king of his world to president shows he's a patriot. He has nothing to gain being president, it will lose him tons of money.

[Cowpie]

One can hope your assessment is correct. We'll have to wait and see. I think a president's term is defined in the first 100 days in office. Thus far, that has been a mixed bag and not real positive. I hope he gets it right.

[JoJoSilverado]

That, and he is a business man first and foremost. Things had recently come out showing that he was starting to get into some financial troubles. He did in fact have a lot to gain in his presidential race; publicity. He funded himself for the election, which is cool and all, but that also means any profits from selling ALL of the "Make America Great Again" and "Trump" merchandise was straight profit for him. I honestly believe he never had the intention of winning the election, just doing it for the major publicity he would achieve throughout the race, and then later on in the race he saw how big of a following he was actually getting and later into the election possibly decided to take it somewhat seriously. But I don't believe his original intentions at the very start were to be a "patriot" and become succeed in becoming the first non-political president.

[KARNUT]

Not positive hummm. My IRA went up a ton since November, my family business I retired from added 3 employees since November and there's talk off a new building. That's my little world, and he's following through on his promises so far. One of the arguments I have with my conservative friends is the last president did just about every thing he said he was going to do when campaigning. This one is too, just depends who you align with. Be well informed and broaden your information gathering, not just CNN, mix it with Fox

 

One can hope your assessment is correct. We'll have to wait and see. I think a president's term is defined in the first 100 days in office. Thus far, that has been a mixed bag and not real positive. I hope he gets it right.

[KARNUT]

That, and he is a business man first and foremost. Things had recently come out showing that he was starting to get into some financial troubles. He did in fact have a lot to gain in his presidential race; publicity. He funded himself for the election, which is cool and all, but that also means any profits from selling ALL of the "Make America Great Again" and "Trump" merchandise was straight profit for him. I honestly believe he never had the intention of winning the election, just doing it for the major publicity he would achieve throughout the race, and then later on in the race he saw how big of a following he was actually getting and later into the election possibly decided to take it somewhat seriously. But I don't believe his original intentions at the very start were to be a "patriot" and become succeed in becoming the first non-political president.

When you run for an office your going to piss about half the people off, not a smart business move. When elected he had to give up a 2 billion$ Dubai deal. The family will not expanding overseas. I think he believes he will fix the US. I'm optimistic. Your really need to get your info from many sources.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cowpie]

 

Not positive hummm. My IRA went up a ton since November, my family business I retired from added 3 employees since November and there's talk off a new building. That's my little world, and he's following through on his promises so far. One of the arguments I have with my conservative friends is the last president did just about every thing he said he was going to do when campaigning. This one is too, just depends who you align with. Be well informed and broaden your information gathering, not just CNN, mix it with Fox

 

One can hope your assessment is correct. We'll have to wait and see. I think a president's term is defined in the first 100 days in office. Thus far, that has been a mixed bag and not real positive. I hope he gets it right.

Investments are not a great indicator of a country's wellbeing. And a family business does not give a barometer of economic health. Even during the Great Depression millionaires were made and new businesses were born. But the overall GDP and economic health was dismal.

 

Nowadays we have massive government overreach and a regulatory mess that stifles economic growth. And socially we have virtually a civil war brewing between interest groups hell bent on reshaping America into something that threatens liberty itself.

 

One should not judge the state of a nation by how full their wallet is.

[KARNUT]

Investments are not a great indicator of a country's wellbeing. And a family business does not give a barometer of economic health. Even during the Great Depression millionaires were made and new businesses were born. But the overall GDP and economic health was dismal.

 

Nowadays we have massive government overreach and a regulatory mess that stifles economic growth. And socially we have virtually a civil war brewing between interest groups hell bent on reshaping America into something that threatens liberty itself.

 

One should not judge the state of a nation by how full their wallet is.

Im not that narrow minded and I agree with you. Putting America first is the only way we can be strong enough to help the less fortunate. That's my opinion and the last on this subject it will get like what's the best oil pretty quick

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cowpie]

With your broadened view, please elaborate with some detail what "putting America first" looks like on a domestic scale, not internationally. And where is the presidential authority to change law established in the Constitution? While a president does have some sway in how agencies are managed, he has no standing to nullify legislation directing an agency to do something. And DT has shown no aptitude for understanding the Constitutional limits placed on the judiciary, which has a propensity to legislate new law thru it's decisions in stark contrast to its constitutional authority.

[KARNUT]

One last time, making possible to keep jobs here. Lower taxes, lower regulations. JFK, Regan, is not an original idea.

 

With your broadened view, please elaborate with some detail what "putting America first" looks like on a domestic scale, not internationally. And where is the presidential authority to change law established in the Constitution? While a president does have some sway in how agencies are managed, he has no standing to nullify legislation directing an agency to do something. And DT has shown no aptitude for understanding the Constitutional limits placed on the judiciary, which has a propensity to legislate new law thru it's decisions in stark contrast to its constitutional authority.