Trump's Supreme Court nominee

[filghy2]

I should add that if you criticise only Clinton and the Democrats, but never offer a word of criticism on Kavanaugh and the Republicans, then you are simply a mirror image of those you are pointing the finger at. Even setting aside the question of whether the two cases are equivalent, you are posing as a high-minded exposer of hypocrisy when you are guilty of precisely the same hypocrisy.

[Stavros]

It would be tough in respect because of the current state of how money is inter-twined with establishment politicians. What the Democrats and Republicans totally missed was that the rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (both being non-establishment, although Trump is more non-establishment than Sanders) is that a huge sector of the populace was tired of establishment politicians. So the key in terms of Libertarian is as they say to "drain the swamps". And right now, the current establishment is doing a better job at draining the swamps than previous Presidential establishments.

I would expect a Libertarian to promote the idea that Government at the Federal and State level is too big, and that the only department of government you actually need is State merely because the USA has international relations. You don't need the Federal Reserve because anyone should be free to create a bank and print their own money derived from the value of their assets. You don't need a Department of Defence because the Constitution allows for the formation of armed militias, and to pay for your military you have to impose taxes on citizens whereas Libertarians don't believe in taxation, and there is not a single reason for any of your armed services to be outside the USA.
The US currently spends $25 billion a year subsidizing the agricultural industry, it should not spend a cent -if farmers can't farm at a profit they should leave the market, or be dumped out of it. Libertarians also do not believe in social controls, which must mean an end to all forms of censorship in the media, the repeal of all laws that concern relationships, sexual preference, and reproductive rights, and because Libertarian believe Freedom is absolute and non-negotiable, all limits on immigration must be removed.

Your President has done nothing to 'drain the swamp' (the quote as he has acknowledged is from Mussolini), he has deepeed its swell by appointing billionaires to run Departments of State where they have racked up staggering bills for transport (Mnuchin can't travel first class by train from DC to New York, he needs military aircraft -why pay $200 for a trip that can cost $20,000?). Ben Carson thinks its ok to spend thousands of dollars on cutlery, and so on and so on. What does 'draining the swamp' mean anyway?

And what about the fact that when the President plays, you pay? Is it coincidental that you have spent millions of dollars on his golfing trips which end up in the tills in the golfing clubs he just happens to own? If this was Africa you would expect the 'Big Man' to help himself to the national wealth, since when did the USA beome just another 'African' Kleptocracy? Swamp has a new meaning, a new identity, a five letter word that starts with a 'T' and ends with a 'P'.

[filghy2]

You forgot to mention Trump's refusal to release tax returns as previous presidents have done. Surely transparency about finances is an absolute first condition for draining the swamp? Also, his refusal to follow previous conventions about putting his affairs into a blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest.

[MrFanti]

I would expect a Libertarian to promote the idea that Government at the Federal and State level is too big, and that the only department of government you actually need is State merely because the USA has international relations.

Most Libertarians that I know only think that the federal government is too big - and has infringed too much on states right to govern. But they also do not think the federal government is useless. E.G., a federal government is needed in foreign relations.

[MrFanti]

Clinton's sluts demeaned by Democrats? Oh No!!!! Look at the picture, Fanti. Where are the Women?
Attachment 1099053

Actually,
Since you've now sunk down to derogatory words (sluts), and can't hold an intelligent debate, I choose not to look at your image.

[MrFanti]

Your President has done nothing to 'drain the swamp'

I tend to disagree with you here, but your point is noted. Personally, I think it's going to take draconian measures to drain the swamp from all, regardless of political party.

[MrFanti]

What does 'draining the swamp' mean anyway?

Generally speaking, it means to make a purge of all establishment politicians, federal employees, and businesses that have become so intertwined with each other, they serve their own personal interests first.

[filghy2]

Mr Fanti the Artful Dodger. For a man with no agenda you seem to have a curious level of selective blindness.

Mr Fanti's art of political debate in 10 easy steps:
1. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
2. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
3. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
4. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
5. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
6. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
7. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
8. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
9. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
10. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.

[Stavros]

Generally speaking, it means to make a purge of all establishment politicians, federal employees, and businesses that have become so intertwined with each other, they serve their own personal interests first.

Your posts suggest you adopt a libertarian position because it is against something rather than an alternative form of politics, one in which ideally there is no state, and thus one which might begin with the minor changes you refer to, but must work toward an end to all forms of taxation and government.

I would agree that there has been a purge, but not of 'establishment politicians' but the bureaucrats in the various departments of state, some of whom come and go with each administration anyway. But if you look at the jobs shredded in the EPA you find experts on climate change have gone because the Administration does not believe in it; the layers of bureacracy shredded by Rex Tillerson may have saved money at State but it has led to one some would call a catastrophic loss of people with years of experience in the Middle East and Korea, to take two examples with the result you now have a shortage of people who can speak the languages of those regions, and as yet the US has still not appointed an Ambassador to South Korea. In these cases it is not in fact the 'establishment politicians' who are being purged but the very experts you need to draw up briefing papers, international documents and so on.

The 'establishment politicians' were on show in the Senate Judciciary Committee, not just Diane Feinstein but Lindsay Graham and Charles Grassley, just as elsewhere you have Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnell, about as establishment as you can get, and as plugged into the 'People's Bank' that is Congress as their younger colleagues.

If you think you can drain a 'swamp' that determines the jobs of approx, 4 million Americans, at least tell us what happens to those jobs when $790 billion worth of contracts are cancelled because they are the 'intertwined' corporations, Senators and Congressional Reps funnelling your taxes to their own state for jobs making bombs and bullets -and all of it applauded by the President himself, which again begs the question is he serious about his own claims?

As for the President himself, if he is so opposed to the corrupt practices of the swamp, why is he so corrupt himself? His entire policy on China has nothing to do with an objective appraisal of the balance of trade, but is revenge, pure and simple. For decades he sat in his New York office seething with rage and resentment as he watched other Americans make plenty dollar in China while the Chinese refused to give him a license to operate in their country. The first thing he did when he visited China as President was to persuade them to give him the access he craved by allowing him to register 38 trademarks, giving him an opening into the Chinese economy, and a clear example of the President using his Office to make money for himself and his family.

So where is this swamp? And who is stirring the slush?

[buttslinger]

Actually,
Since you've now sunk down to derogatory words (sluts), and can't hold an intelligent debate, I choose not to look at your image.

The last thing I want to do is appear derogatory toward women.