What's life without a bit of goofiness my friend

I have a lot of respect for conservatives who rightfully criticize 45 and hold him accountable despite the pressures of establishment Republicans.

Well, to punish us Europeans for not buying America First...

Profits.... US wants to make money from it.
Same thing with Trump claiming EU doesnt spend enough on military (he means the EU doesnt buy enough military equipment from them).

The thing is, in the US, included in the military bills, are stuff like health insurances, pentions ect.
While in the EU, that stuff isnt, its something everyone has.

Alot of european countires, the % they spend on military, if counted the same way the americans do, is actually above that 2% margin, they keep mentioning.
The US isnt angry about paying more than others, it likes its military prowess, its anger comes from thinking the rest of the world doesnt buy enough from them, and the military complex they have. Wars and Guns and bombs are good bussiness for the US.

Some like Pictionary, others prefer WOF.

Red and blue. Interesting.

A refresher.

America had a 90% tax rate, from it's inception until just recently? How much is too much, and who's right?

You mean like how some people don't like the fact that the Reps 'built cages' and are 'forcing those poor children to live in those cages'? The cages a well respected Dem built, and cages that wouldn't house those poor children if they weren't illegally being brought into the country by whomever? I'm sure the media will be oh so helpful in making the candidates messages nothing but clear so that the people can make the most informed decision without question.

Sorry but that's like saying I think Ferrari should build pick up trucks. Where's there representation? How could anyone think favorably about an auto co like that? What you want is a Ford, Dodge, or Chev, but they don't exist. It's Horses vs bulls and you either choose one or walk.

If this is the case, then what about the growing middle class and the people who are coming out of poverty because of the Reps? Are they losing more than they are gaining, or vice versa, or is it basically a draw?

So what if we are talking about the efficiency of providing rights?

If rights trump efficiency, then we should put that role on a central government, not the states, because their will always be variation in the interpretation and expression of rights when subdivided into 50 pieces. On the other hand, a federal government can ensure uniform access to certain rights. Look at gay marriage for an example. Some states legalized gay marriage, but others lagged behind. It took the federal government stepping in and exercising their power to ensure that homosexual individuals uniformly had the right to marriage across the country.

This is the problem with a federal government that relies to heavily on the states when it comes to "rights". It leaves a lot of people behind in areas where certain rights (and often certain demographics) are valued less.

If I may play devil's advocate (as I often like to do), there shouldn't be any arguing or fighting if an argument has been won.

"Which would suggest the Trump supporters already lost if they needed a guide to help them."

>Not if the argument was ongoing when supporters got their hands on the guide.

"But that's also circular logic on your part, "there shouldn't be any arguing...if an argument has been won."  How does one win an "argument" if there never was an "argument"?"

>Pardon me, there shouldn't be any further arguing.

"And if you're trying to imply there shouldn't be 'further arguments' if the 'initial argument' was already won, then see my point above."

>See what point?

The problem with rights is they're not universal laws. They are something we made up for the good of the people, based on consensus. The reason for the rights that initially were written in, is because they were widely agreed upon. Eventually at least. This is why the Federal Gov should not be pushing states around. If the state is against rights the Gov is promoting, then the state should be given the time to make changes, or decide not to. You can bet if certain states knew that the Gov would end up with as much power as it has, and would push rights and laws, etc, that they may be against, without the power to stop it, they very well may have never joined in the first place.

In terms of leaving people behind, it happens all the time, everyday, in every way. That's life. Just because the Federal Gov decided to make up a new right and push it on the states, shouldn't mean that they have to just bend over and accept it. Sure this sounds fine when the rights seem worthy to some, but what about if they don't seem worthy to others, or many even? If the Gov can just force rights on states and their people immediately, what about if and/or when they decide to force them to do the unthinkable? Should the states just blindly obey? What's good and what's not, exactly?

A Federal Gov with less power means less efficiency in terms of getting done what it decides it wants to, but leaves people with more freedom and choice in their lives with existing rights in general. If new rights truly make sense, eventually they will be agreed upon and pushed through. Until then, whoever wants those rights, is free to do as they please until then for the most part. Protest, move to another state that has instated the right for the time being, move back if your state eventually agree's to implement it, etc.

Is force more preferable over choice? Is efficiency more preferable over existing rights?