yjacket

JAG, Just come off it. I destroyed your guy and you can't let it go. Stop being so incredibly bitter and stop twisting the facts. Okay, calling someone "Little Marco" and "Lying Ted" . . .that's reprehensible. If that is so reprehensible, I shudder to think what you'd think of the rest of the crud in this world, you must hide under a blanket telling yourself "please make the bad men go away". Yeah, it's playground tactics, it sucks I don't like it, but it is very effective. But to counter those absolutely horrible, reprehensible words, there are plenty of stories of Trump being very kind and generous. I've only mentioned Gary Johnson once, because this is the first time I've posted about politics that he has actually won the Libertarian nomination. I've said multiple times I'd vote Libertarian. I very well can't vote for Gary Johnson if he isn't the Libertarian nominee, no duh. It is amazing to me how much you are willing to twist peoples words to make them into what you want them to be. You want, no you need me to be a Trump supporter. Because heaven forbid that someone who isn't a Trump supporter, saw through your guy as a scumbag. MG and I have a truce and an understanding (although I don't think we were ever at war). You can't seem to lay down the knife . . . Johnson is polling at 10%, he needs 15% to be included in the debates. I hope he makes it up to 15%. I think it's be great, it would give some exposure to ideas that are sorely needed in politics. Now please tell me again how much of a Trump supporter I am-please twist my words, make them into something they aren't simply because you need them to be something different.

My apologies MG, I'm sorry that I grouped you in with others. You are certainly right. I appreciate your comments.

I'll get accused of being a Trump supporter, but the names have never been about his inadequacies or about just simply being a jerk. They are calculated, planned, targeted, accurate and very effective. Some people hate Trump so much they can't see his what he is doing. "Crooked Hillary" - yeap she is a crook. "Lying Ted" - if your slogan is "Trust me" somethings wrong. "Low-Energy Bush", Bush even recognized he needed a little extra pep hence Jeb!!!! "Pocahontas", remind everyone that she lied-she ain't no Native American His own inadequacies?? I guess you know everything about this guy, his kids are smart, intelligent, can speak well and accurately. I don't know any father that wouldn't be proud of those kids. He's got the trophy wife, billions of dollars . . . .maybe he is compensating. Who knows. Or maybe some people are just simply jealous. But please, tell me I'm a Trump supporter even though I'll be voting for Gary Johnson . . . .

It has been answered here, the answer is simply something you don't like. Quite frankly it is wrong because God said so. End of story. You don't have to like it, but God is the ultimate authority figure in our lives and the sooner each individual gets on board with that fact the easier life gets. God has said so through His scriptures and through His prophets multiple times. Sometimes in life, God just simply says flat out NO and the more humbly we accept that answer the easier life is for us. Your answer of "what's wrong with having a male companion", is quite frankly an immature attitude. It is a very simple problem, do you want to follow God or not? Read https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A16-24&version=KJV. The meaning isn't simply about a rich man. It is about being willing to give up everything, everything you hold dear for God. Wrong, you don't want to talk to the Branch President because of what he might say. It has nothing to do with what you might say to the BP, it has everything to do with the fact that you have convinced yourself that homosexual relationships as long as it doesn't involve sex is okay and it isn't. No rationalization will make it okay and acceptable. Actually it might be in the best interest of the Elder to get transferred, you would be doing yourself and him a favor. Transfers occur every six weeks, if it is close to a transfer date, they would just transfer him without any problems. It is possible to have emergency transfers in between if necessary and they don't necessarily have to give a reason. Yes, I have warned multiple times. I will say, unfortunately, there are times when the Elders don't quite understand the full implications of baptism in a person's life. It is one of the reasons why the Church has about a 50% retention rate after baptism. Investigators feel all warm and fuzzy, get baptized, and sometimes they don't quite realize the full implications of what they are committing to. A huge part of it is responsibility on the investigators part, is the investigator upfront with the missionaries. Did you mention to the Elders the extent of your relationship? I highly doubt they would say, yeah that is okay. Did you disclose in the baptismal interview that you have a male companion with whom you are in a homosexual relationship? Look, I've seen this rodeo before only in a heterosexual since. 2 good looking American missionaries in a foreign land, young 19 year-old girl likes the discussions, feels the Spirit but also has a crush on the missionaries. She attends church while the missionaries are there as soon as they are transferred she stops coming and mostly reverts back to her former life. She certainly has learned a lot and the Gospel certainly enriches her life, but she reverts back to the old life, clubbing, not living the Word of Wisdom, etc. She was baptized more for the missionaries rather than being converted. Certainly it wasn't done on a whim, and she certainly believes the Church is true, she feels the pull of God, but it also feels real good to be around a couple of cute guys who talk religion and spend an hour a day (or more) at least once or twice a week. Maybe in 10 years after she has gone through it and come back, she'll remember some of the lessons and decide it is time to actually become converted rather than just go through the motions. Just so you understand how serious homosexual behavior is: https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng In other words, children who are raised in a homosexual environment are ineligible for baptism until they turn 18 and completely renounce their parents beliefs on it. Now, that's hammer. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is amazing it is awesome and the blessings untold. The scriptures warn that in the Last Days, men will call good evil and evil good. That is happening today. Which side are you on?

Anyone who lost a house because they borrowed what the banks told them they could without figuring it out themselves deserves to lose a house. Owning a house is one of the biggest responsibilities (besides having kids) and they couldn't figure out their own finances? I'm not buying it. It's called being an adult, it's called being responsible. If one can't figure out one shouldn't borrow 300k on a 50k-60k income, I'm not shedding any tears. If you want to get mad at the banks, get made at the Federal Reserve for bailing out the banks and buying the mortgages that were worth 25 cents on the dollar at full face value. The banks that made bad loans should have gone belly-up, except they got bailed out. That is what is really criminal.

There is a reason why Trump calls her Pocohontas. http://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/ Warren lied.

Till, Congratulations on your baptism. I'm going to offer the same caution I offered earlier, be very careful in your decisions or you will very likely find yourself walking out of the Church. The Gospel is awesome, it's wonderful, but baptism and hearing it for the first time is a spiritual high. What happens in six months from now, a year from now. As a newly baptized member of the Church you have made some sacred covenants with God, to be a discipline of Christ. He has promised that as you obey his commandments he will provide many blessings for you. One of those commandments is unequivocally that homosexual behavior in all forms is unacceptable. Personally, I find it a little disheartening that some members of the church will have disagreements over things like whether "vaping" is acceptable or whether drinking caffeine is against the Word of Wisdom and yet they have a very hard time stating unequivocally that homosexual behavior in all forms is unacceptable. I know this is very hard for you, homosexual behavior does not just encompass sex. Homosexual behavior also encompasses the realm of homosexual relationships. It is absolutely unacceptable for two men to be in a non-sexual but romantic relationship. That is part of living the Gospel. Just like it is unacceptable to attend Church wearing a mini-skirt, or a t-shirt saying Heroin is good, or vaping in the Church, it is unacceptable to demonstrate homosexual behavior inside the Church building. It is unacceptable to be a member in good standing and be in a homosexual relationship. Where exactly does a non-sexual but romantic homosexual relationship lead, you hold hands and snuggle for the next 60 years of your life? I also don't think you completely understand asexual, it means "a person with no sexual feelings or desires". So you are telling me that you don't get aroused . . .like ever . .? If that is the case, why do you want to be in a romantic relationship with a man? The whole point of why God gave men and women desires is to have a family and that can only occur between man and woman. You want children, but yet you don't want take the necessary actions to have children (i.e. sexual feelings for a woman). If the reason is because you want to be loved so you can feel whole/complete, no one can do that for you. Only you can make yourself whole I will sing it loud and clear, homosexual behavior in all forms is unacceptable behavior for a member in good standing of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, no ifs ands or buts. It's not just about sex. Please note I have said behavior not feelings. As a sidenote, I don't know about wearing women's jackets but as an FYI transgender individuals are not eligible to attend the temple and become endowed. The Church and the Gospel are firm that God gave men and women distinct roles and responsibilities, and each gender should rejoice and enjoy their roles and responsibilities-they are distinct and it is necessary for them to work together to carry out God's plan.

I would say not necessarily. If our system of a government was a Theocracy, then I would say yes. I think the right response is to understand the proper role of government. Take prohibition. While the proper role of religion and morality is to encourage, teach, exhort individuals to not drink, IMO it is not the proper role of religion to encourage the passage of laws that will deprive another individual of their life, their liberty and their property simply for engaging in an activity that we find immoral that they do not find immoral. While certainly prohibition on drugs and alcohol can lower the overall consumption rate, it is always the unseen or unintended consequences that must be considered. Prohibition has brought the massive drug lords and the massive overreach and militarization of police. I remember whenever I watch Cops, at least 75% of the cases shown are for drugs. How many people have been put in jail, i.e. deprived of their life, their liberty, their property simply for putting into their own body something that I disagree with. It is the height of hubris, power and control that to want to force another human being to not put something into their body that they want to put into it. If one believes the proper role of government is that to teach morality then yes by all means we should vote for those laws that enforce our version of morality. If we view the proper role of government as a force that deprives others of their life, liberty and property, then we should be very, very careful about advocating for laws that enforce our own morality. Remember, the Gospel is perfect, the Church is not; this isn't complaining about leaders, it's just stating a fact. God has given each of us the ability to pray to Him to find out what we should do. If the Church as an organization advocates for a particular law, we should pray about it and determine if we feel the same way. If we do, support it, if not, don't support it.

Good, we agree on something. Some battles are worth fighting some aren't. Cursing is a battle worth fighting, arguing about USAmerica is not a battle worth fighting.

Lol, now USAmerica is cursing . . . the hypocrisy. Oh my goodness . . .LDS web forum . . . yeah right. Choosing to be offended is not what we have been taught.

Yeap, typical modern society. You are the ones who are choosing to make a big deal out of a silly word for pete's sake. My gosh, my children are better than this. "Daddy, he said a word I don't like", My response: "I don't care, learn to deal with it". If Lesellers was making fun of someone that is one thing, but he isn't . . .man this is really stupid.

Yes, the above is the epitome of thin-skinned. Obviously you care about it b/c there are 2 pages of it. If several people here weren't thin-skinned it wouldn't even be an issue. Thin-skinned isn't about what other people do, it is about how we react to what other people do. This is just typical of modern society (not my fault, it's their fault, they are the ones to blame). No wonder the level of discord on this forum has grown by leaps and bounds. No one can offend us, we choose to be offended.

I agree. I remember when I first got to South America on my mission. People ask where are you from, I'd say "America" and wow did they get offended, and Latins are about the least politically correct people on the planet. I just learned to say "norteamericana" or "los estatos unidos". Since this is a world-wide forum, I don't find Leseller's use offending at all . . . I think it's a bigger comment on how easy it is to offend people. We all need to grow thicker skins.

Till, Incorrect assumption on my part for your age, it was simply an educated guess based on ages of missionaries, etc., my bad. IMO 18 vs. 21 still isn't too much of a difference. I'm glad you don't pay attention to psychologist. With regards to the not hurting anyone. I'm uber-libertarian, but not libertine. I believe that from a governmental perspective as long as one doesn't encroach on another's rights, it should be allowed. Whether it is a moral action, and whether or not it hurts someone else is a different matter. In a vacuum, simply one homosexual loving another homosexual only ends up hurting themselves. That is very similar to fornication. Two individuals who use protection and fornicate (i.e. neither are married yet have sex) can easily make the claim that they are not hurting anyone else, yet the Church discriminates against them just the same as it discriminates against homosexuals. Quite simply it is a moral matter. The Church has made very strong claims that homosexual behavior is outside the bounds that God has taught. God and the Church has unequivocally made that clear, and it is something that you will have to come to terms with. This much I can guarantee, if you are not able to come to terms with it and be at peace with it, you will one day find yourself walking out the door. Now this doesn't mean you have to come to terms with it right now, it just means that over time you will need to resolve it. Please notice that I have always said homosexual behavior. I would point you to a couple of very good resources: https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng http://mormonsandgays.org/ We don't know and I'm not sure we will ever know why people initially become attracted to another person. What we do know is that people can change their behavior. It is the behavior which the Lord and the Church condemns. Love is absolutely a blessing, but everything in this life has its bounds. Pure Christlike love, i.e. Charity, is much different than attraction/emotional love. Christlike Charity is doing everything in ones power for the blessing of other people with no expectation of any return and has no bounds. For physical and emotional love, we give of ourselves yet at the same time we receive it back. A relationship where both individuals do not do this is a recipe for a broken relationship. For physical and emotional love the Lord has absolutely set standards that cannot be broken least we face His wrath and judgement. To directly answer your question, I would do whatever the Lord required of me. If the Lord required me to sacrifice all that I have and all that I am for Him-yes I would do it. And I do not say that lightly. I have had my own personal experience, that was my own Abrahamic experience that in some ways was similar to Abraham sacrificing his own son. And after having that experience, I can say 100% absolutely yes, I would do whatever the Lord required. Yes I am straight, however, it is 100% possible to change behavior, the will to act however is a different matter. For heterosexual married men, this is evident in abstaining from things like pornography and bad movies, not flirting, etc. Simply not oogling a pretty woman, these are all behaviors that can be changed. What is amazing is that the more practice one has with changing behavior, the more attitudes and actually who you are change. One can be a heterosexual man (married or unmarried) and not look at porn, not develop a crush on a co-worker, etc. One can acknowledge physical beauty without feeling anything for it or needing it. The idea that we cannot control feelings is absolute bull. In the moment, it is very difficult to control one's feelings, however feelings are meant to be controlled, tamed, harnessed. It is one of the defining characteristics between children and adults. A child throws a tantrum and rages inside. The child is taught to control the tantrum and not act out, and internally eventually the rage becomes controlled and the child no longer throws a hissy-fit anytime something goes wrong. No, I'm not saying heterosexual adoptions are a lie, because it is still a man and a woman and it is within the bounds the Lord has set, it is not the same as having one's own flesh and blood, but given the pain and suffering those who cannot have children go through it's well worth it. Homosexual adoptions are an abomination; we are talking about the raising of the next generation and there is no responsibility more sacred and more important than training the next generation. The ideal family unit is a man and a wife (it is spelled out in the Proclamation). Quite frankly the parts (physically, emotionally, and spiritually) do not fit together for a homosexual family. There are attributes that children need to learn that only a woman can provide, there are attributes that children need to learn that only a man can provide. Single part households are especially difficult b/c one piece is missing. Homosexual households are worse because they try to replace the missing part with a fraud. A man, no matter how feminine he is will never be a woman, the brain, the body, etc. it is fundamentally different. The same goes for a woman, she will never be a man. With regards to fostercare children, yes I am saying they will be better off not being adopted by homosexuals. Foster care children are already (through no fault of their own) messed up and have lived horrible lives. One is taking a child, who has lived an extremely messed up life and is now putting them into another environment that is messed up. A fostercare child, needs love, leadership and most importantly above all else discipline. A foster child needs a stable environment with representative examples of both sexes loving each other and working very hard. One of the reasons why children need both is because they need to see the strengths and weaknesses in both sexes to understand and learn value in and about the opposite sex and their own sex. How is a male child in a homosexual environment going to learn to treat his future wife if he has 2 dads? I guarantee you the moment that he tries to treat his wife the way one "Dad" treated the other "Dad" he is going to be in for some rough lessons. Where do we learn these behaviors? In the home!!! How is the female child going to learn to treat her future husband? It is amazing how much we as children pick up and learn from our upbringing and we don't become self aware about it until much later in life. There is a fallacy in modern-day parenting that parents are there to be a child's friend and to help the child explore who they are. Nothing could be further from the truth. The task of raising an adult is no less than teaching and training a child how to be responsible, independent, and a good moral person. Being a parent is an indoctrination job. Up until about 50-60 years ago, if a young father lost his wife or a young mother lost her husband they would remarry and generally pretty quickly. I know that I would easily remarry if that happened to me. People simply understood the necessity of the opposite sex in the home. And I guarantee you just about any single parent out there would say STTE I just wish my children had a good "father/mother" in their life. God did not intend for men nor women to raise adults alone. Society has stayed with the opposite sex household for thousands of years, it has worked, it has worked very well. Yet us modern humans, in our hubris seem to think that simply because two people love each other it is the basis for overturning the fundamental unit of society, the family. It will be for our destruction.

1st off Congratulations on deciding to become baptized. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is awesome, there is nothing more powerful in the world and joining his Church is a big step in learning how to live like He would want us to live and to become as much as possible in this life like Him. 2nd off, I will provide some of my thoughts and please do not take personal affront nor offense, I mean none and always remember no matter what you are a Son of God, your were created in His likeness and image with the potential to become like Him and to one day live with Him again. No one understands your situation like your Heavenly Father, ultimately in the extremely tough times of your life it is to Him who you should always turn. He might not always answer your prayers in the time-frame you want, but he will always answer them-sometimes with a No, sometimes Yes, sometimes it doesn't matter and sometimes not yet. Yes, your LGBT friends will most likely abandon you. You are very young and most likely very tender, I can't imagine you being more than 18, which means that you've had at most 4-5 years in puberty. For you, those 4-5 years have seemed like a long time (over 25% of the time you've been alive!). But compared to the likely length of your life those 4-5 years represent maybe 5% of your life and represent nothing in the scheme of your eternal life. But while in the big picture it is a very small portion of time, the choices you make now will have lasting consequences for years and decades to come. I feel very sorrowful for today's youth, they are being led by the Syren Call down to paths that led nowhere good. In general, the youth today do not have good role models, they do not have good teachers, they do not have parents who teach discipline, responsibility and grit. Today's culture is a "do whatever you want" culture where it's no rules and no consequences. It is a lie, a lie from the Great Deceiver. Ultimately, if you make the choice to continue to follow Christ, what you will find in your life is that you will change your attitude and your very nature to become more like Christ. In doing so, you will find that you will naturally change the types of friends you have. I would urge caution on using terminology that the Church "discriminates", discriminates is a loaded term that is used improperly. Every day, every individual discriminates, one's choice of friends is a form of discrimination. As a society we are seeing the natural evolution of the word "discrimination" that turns any type of choice that some people don't like into a "social justice". The Church discriminates based on behavior, it discriminates against thieves, against adulterers, against murderers, against all forms of deviant behavior as specified by Holy Scriptures. The problem being with LGBT is that they see their behavior as something they can't change, in fact in many cases don't want to change-therefore they see it as the Church discriminating against their very person, which isn't the case, it is discrimination against behavior. And it is very unfortunate because it is only within the bounds the Lord has set, obeying His commandments and His laws that regulate our behavior that we can find ultimate peace and happiness in this life. I applaud your desire to have a family. However, a homosexual couple with children is a lie, it isn't a family it is a pretend family. The only way that children can be created is from man and woman. For a homosexual couple to have children it requires an individual of the opposite sex. It is why infertile heterosexual couples feel such devastating loss. There is absolutely nothing in this world like creating another human being with someone you love, to watch it grow, and then to give birth. Adoption is a good substitute for some couples, but regardless it still isn't the same. In addition, the raising of adults requires both Father and Mother. The farther one gets away from the ideal of a heterosexual couple creating a child together and raising it together the more challenges and problems will occur and the more likely that the children that are raised will have issues. I would also stay away a little bit from the psycobabble, Freud was doing cocaine and mushrooms and who knows what else http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/22/sigmund-freuds-cocaine-problem/. How many of his ideas came when his was high??? Who knows. Most psychologist have absolutely no way to prove their theories, they simply sit and think and then when they think they've thought of something good they write it down and sell it. Psychology is in many ways a modern day religion (and I've read a lot of it).

I'm not going to look through 15 pages, you can pull up all these links to attack me, but can't find the one where I said Trump would need them . . . give me a break. Saying one has a preference on candidate over the other does not a Trumpkin make, nor does it mean someone is for that person. A preference of being shot vs. being hung does not mean I'm for being shot. You again reading into things what you want to read. You've got all these links, but where did I defend Trump's most "boorish" behavior. Where did I say that it was perfectly fine for him to do some of the things he did? I said what he did was brilliant/impressive (from a strategic standpoint), i.e. an art of war standpoint. Just b/c I say that it was impressive doesn't mean I think it is morally good. There is quite a difference in understanding and admiring someone's psychological strategy and saying you think it is a morally good thing to do. If one can never learn to give their enemy credit they will never know how to beat them. Which is why no one else could beat Trump-they were too busy seeing him as this "evil, boorish" guy to actually understand what he was doing. Everyone thinks Trump is an idiot, boorish, evil, etc. etc. etc. yet they fail to actually comprehend what he did. And what he did, the way he did it was absolutely impressive. We've never seen anything like it in our lifetime. Read the Dilbert's guys take on it. He is dead on about Trump; whether or not you agree with Trumps positions (the foreign policy is the only one where I'm close to him on it), or agree with how he does things (which I don't), it is still impressive. People think he is this idiot, this buffoon, etc. regardless the way he operates is impressive. If you fail to comprehend what and how he did what he did, you will always be angry about this election and angry at anyone who disagrees with you. For example, Megan Kelly even made peace with Trump and that's after he called her a bimbo. And that is why Cruz people lost, they seriously underestimated what Trump was doing, they thought everyone would be for their guy, but when it came down to it more people were anti-Cruz than anti-Trump. But, yes, yes please go ahead and make the attack that I'm a Trumpster, simply b/c I have the where with all to be impressed with what someone does. I'm impressed with Cruz, his delegate strategy was executed very well, tactically it was brilliant and how Cruz executed it was brilliant. Strategically he was dumb about it, it's one of the reasons why he lost. For example, Cruz is going to go into the convention with at least 500 hard-core supporters. If the guy was smart, he would use those supporters for leverage, get something on the platform, advance the cause, it. People seem to think it's all about the presidency. It's the Presidency or Bust and that's not the way it works. Cruz can have a good amount of leverage, if he plays it right; he can get some of the Tea Party issues front and center. But if all he and his supporters want to do is whine and moan and complain about how "evil, boorish" etc. Trump is then good luck on pushing any of those issues. Let's see, Bush I, Bush II, Jeb, Graham, Ryan and Romney all refuse to endorse Trump . . .I'd say that's pretty good company-all of those people are part of the globalist insider cabal neo-con CFR network. If I were running for President I wouldn't want their support anyways. And most of the country couldn't care about them giving their support to Trump either (Republicans widely rejected the Bush's and Graham)..

Lol, JAG you didn't prove anything. You'd like to think you did, but you didn't. Lol, about your wife, give me a break. You never directly answered my question and here you are again wanting to get into it. You can't let it go. I directly asked you a question about specific behavior, i.e. if you thought doing x was acceptable for a married individual. Instead of directly answering the question (which would have revealed the depths to which you are willing to defend a politician who doesn't deserve your defense), you continually evade, deny, make counter-accusations. You accuse me in essence of being a liar, being two-faced, claiming that I'm not for Trump but that I really am for Trump (i.e. that I'm a liar). you put all the blame on someone else. You can't or won't answer a simple question, which is quick frankly "is having a private meal with someone of the opposite sex at 2am in the morning acceptable?" You refuse to answer that question. You are a divorce lawyer and you won't answer that question. That tells me you are the one who is being not on the up and up, not me. I never accused you or your wife of impropriety, I simply said I guess you think that behavior is acceptable and that's fine if you do. I don't think it is acceptable. You are the one with the problem, not me.. So many people have a reading comprehension problem. I am sick and tired of people putting words in my mouth and deliberately misconstruing what I post in order to suit their own agenda. Not being for Cruz is not the same thing as being for Trump. You continually refuse to accept the fact that I have continually said both are not very good people. You continually deny the fact that I have said they need each other. You want to read something what you want to read and the actual words that I type do not matter to you.

I hope it wasn't me; no I understand why people don't vote 3rd parties, I just happen to disagree.

Well he definitely exposed the hypocrisy in the pro-life movement. He originally came out in support of punishment if a woman has an abortion; the backlash from the pro-life movement was swift and harsh. I actually think its the only moral position to take, if one believes abortion is murder, then both the doctor and the woman are committing murder. It's pretty simple. And Planned Parenthood is one of those hot-button issues that no one understands or looks at and everyone screams "DEFUND IT". You can't "defund" it, it doesn't have a line item in the Congressional Budget to get defunded. It's not a governmental organization. It gets most of it's federal money from reimbursements using Medicare and Medicaid. So there isn't a "defunding" of PP, you have to remove abortions from being reimbursed from Medicare and Medicaid in order to "defund" it. Otherwise, if PP got "defunded" there would simply be another organization who would pop up that would take PPs place.

JAG, I don't get you man . . .I guess if you repeat a lie so many times you come to believe it. I have never said that Trump didn't need conservatives, in fact I said he did and he does. You want to cast me as a Trumpster/Trumpkin whatever you want to call it. I have continually said a pox on both their houses. I have continually said both are narcissist. Just because I attacked your favorite guy (who is about as truthful as a 3 dollar bill) and ripped the cover off of him, does not mean I am a Trumpster (who is also about as truthful as a 3 dollar bill). The biggest thing that I like about Trump (at this point) is that I haven't seen any connection to the globalist, the CFRs, the Rockefellers, the New World Order, etc. He isn't a globalist and that IMO is a huge plus, that is reason enough to vote for the guy (even though he might be a pompous and egotistical). People really don't realize how badly the globalists have screwed over this country. Welcome to the club of being a political outcast. I've been a libertarian for years, the only time in my life I've voted for a Republican President was in 2000 (when I was a lot dumber). The political system in the US is messed up; it is a weird mix of democracy mixed with a twinge of republicanism. Given that we are so into democracy now-it would be much better if we had a political system like european countries with a few major parties and several minor parties that can get elected. Breaking the political spectrum into simply Republican and Democract is just dumb. The only way that is going to change is to start at the bottom, either have part of the Republican party break-off or start a new one. Personally, I disagree with MG on 3rd parties. IMO that is how the country goes further and further down to statism . . . each succeeding R nominee is less and less freedom oriented than the last.

Lol it's still a lot more than you or I will ever have and he. That's like saying I've made and lost tens of thousands of dollars, it's a pointless meaningless statement. Are you just a little jealous? Maybe that is what this is about, some people are just extremely jealous of a man who is extremely successful.

That is very true. . . but it's not going to be fixed by who the country elects as President!!

Bald face lies . . you really want to get into it again JAG? You seem to think your guy is this pristine, Christian man, or is only doing God's work . . . lol. The guy is a slimball; you just can seem to admit you were duped or at least that a significant portion of voters didn't like him. Really, the guy is going through Indiana saying things like "there are millions of people praying for you right now to make the right decision" give me a break. It smacks of desperation, pandering, an over aggrandized sense of self worth. Geez . . . The guy's more fake than a 3 dollar bill . . . I don't offer you anybody . . . my goodness you can't seem to read what I type and you insert your own ideas into it. Sorry that I shattered your bubble and your world, but your guy is just as fake as them all.

I would argue that it isn't isolationism but non-interventionism. Isolationism is North Korea and Iran, cultures that completely cut themselves off from the rest of the world. Absolutely no one in the libertarian wing wants that. I argue that non-interventionism is the original conservative position. Who got us into WWI, a Democrat, WWII a Democrat; had we minded our own business in WWI and let Europe figure out its own problems WWI would have ended like most wars ended in Europe with the winning side not asking for total unconditional surrender and allowing the losing side some grace in defeat. Instead b/c the US decided to intervene, Germany faced extremely harsh reparations that brought about the right conditions for a Hitler to emerge and seize power. Getting to the root of the word conservative . . . there is nothing that conserves in going into other countries and enforcing "democracy" on them like we have in Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc. etc. etc. That is progressive, i.e. to make progress or change someone else's culture. As far as drugs go . . . I don't think laws against drugs are really stemming the tide of drugs? http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-01-05/loosened-us-pot-laws-have-sent-mexican-weed-prices-plunging It's simple economics, if you want to stop gangs and the drug lords eliminate drug laws. Their economic incentive (i.e. ability to make money off of it) will drop like a rock. No money, they go out of business (or at least dramatically scale it down), less violence, less killing. Then we get the people who do drugs help-it's a medical problem not a law enforcement problem.

No kidding, implementing wage controls . . .then since companies couldn't pay people more they started offering health insurance to compensate for not paying more. Tying health insurance to a job . . . about the stupidest thing that could have been done for health insurance.