It is unlikely he would have both houses of congress anyway, so his major role would be to tell us if the emperor has no clothes.

Its way too early to present "solutions". One would need a lot of information not yet available to him. He has no advisers at this point either. We are nearly a year away from an election. We want someone who can take the data and make decisions based on the date- in real time, not a year in advance. Things change in a years time.

The purpose of BK rules is to speed up the process of "moving on". It was mostly designed for individuals so they can resume their lives again and be productive. Otherwise , one big screwup and you are done for the rest of your life.

He has run very successful businesses, which is more than any of the other candidates can say.
It would be refreshing to have someone in there who understands business and negotiating with foreign countries

That is true, whether it be by a favorite GOD or a politician.

She is out for herself ONLY, and it would become obvious in short order and the citizens would not respect her

A lot of people want to follow some "leader", be it a religious one or a secular one.

I agree totally that she will make a terrible president. I suspect Sanders would be worse in that he is a true socialist (although he is at least honest about it. I am goint to vote for Trump, in that at least he speaks his mind and you know where he is at- and he runs successful businesses and is a good negotiator.)

I'd rather let you have your opinions and I already defended OUR liberty in Vietnam and would be very happy to do it today, actually more happy today!

http://www.politico.com/magazine/stor...

The term is Post-Constitutional America.

We have nothing more to discuss.
I'd rather starve as a free man than eat cake as a slave. You'd rather eat cake than defend your liberty or your principles.

We should not be looking for a "leader" or a "ruler". I don't want either. What I want is a representative which will take on the mundane tasks of the Gov't. Stuff like keeping foreign troops from invading and bombs from falling out of the sky on my home. Its not much but I paid for it. We need representatives who will "promote the general welfare" by staying out of the way of productive people.

OK, so quit voting for the D and the Rs and we might get a few thousand converts per election. Instead of the third party getting 3% they might get 5% and it will take a hundred years to get anywhere just like it took a hundred years to get where we are.
It is a highly flawed system which is the exact reason I go for who I think is the lesser evil. Some cake is better than no cake. But again, I do agree. I just don't see the tides changing unless we can get all the Non voters off their asses.

The premise is flawed. Free men with individual rights can not have rulers.

Every president whether Dem or GOP has increased the power of the state and reduced individual liberty.
Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is an excellent example of Einsiein's definition of insanity: Repeating the same actions and expecting a different result.

"We are just now getting to the end of 8 years "
that's what most people thought at the end of GWB's disasterous rule, too. It doesn't get better by repeating the same errors. The GOP offers no glimmer of hope, just another mirage of hype.

Again, if people like you don't desert the GOP's false hope and vote your principles the state will continue to grow, liberty will continue to disappear, just as it has in every regime since 1913.

Your choice, exercised freely. Exactly what I'm advocating. More power to you! More power to us!

caveat emptor is exactly why I will not be voting for Trump. I've already seen what he's selling and am not interested in the risks he presents.

No disagreement, there. However, bankruptcy rules exist as a tool of business (bad business decisions, if you will) and, nevertheless, have been and will be used as long as they exist. I suggest that those who benefited by them and those who did not benefit by them all made choices that led to the consequences. Again, caveat emptor.

Wow! You be rude! I not whinin mson. Simply bein realistic.

Much better to have the lesser of two evils than the greater. And you can hardly hold hold me responsible for what the majority voted in. I guess you are becoming like the retards you detest - you aren't willing to use logic, hold on to your irrational beliefs in spite of the evidence, and refuse to recognize it when you're wrong!

And BTW, I'm not supporting statists. I'm simply trying to prevent the greater statist from winning. And also, BTW, I haven't voted for president in over 45 years, since we are not permitted to do so in the US Virgin Islands. But I definitely have an interest in the election, since the result influences our lives here in the islands.

Once again I have to agree with you! Too bad out of all the votes that are cast 95% go to one or the other of the evil entities. I think a viable third party would be a very good thing in our politics but I fear I won't see it in what life time I have left. I understand that you think I am just as wrong as I think you are but face the facts. We are just now getting to the end of 8 years of democratic rule by the very worst president and administration in my entire life. I will gladly waste my vote on the GOP just to get them out and at least see a glimmer of hope.

Haven't posted here for anyone not to vote.
No name calling on my part that I see either.
So-called conservatives have wasted votes on the GOP for decades.
The state gets bigger under every GOP administration, and you whine about third parties having no chance and you continue to support the evil statist party.
The founders of America had no guarantees; you don't get any either.
Realistically the British should have crushed the American revolution, but men of integrity didn't sacrifice their principles.
Voting for evil against your principles is the problem. You are responsible for the massive government, but you want to shift blame to others for your decision to support the statists.

I am taking responsibility for my actions but I don't usually agree with the results. So why not tell me what exactly your actions of refusing to not bother to vote gains us? I am all in for a solution but what you both are saying solves nothing other than allowing you to say I voted for neither evil.
Please don't bother to tell me you would have voted for Ron or Rand Paul. Nice guys, both but also had about a snow balls chance in hell of ever coming close to winning. Just for fun say Trump is the R nominee and Clinton the D so you write in Mickey Mouse or Rand Paul. What good did your vote do other than end up in the circular file and appease your own self centered dislike of the system we have in place. Forget the name calling and evil label bullshit, make me and others here understand what your attitudes are attempting to prove. I am happy to argue where I stand without the name calling crap but you two are not. BTW, I have never yet seen where Not voting or where voting for some third party candidate who had zero chance of coming even remotely close to winning has ever done us any good. Yes, we are in the Gulch but this is fiction. We happen to live in the real world and I want to know how your plan is going to change this BS system we have.

No one enters business negotiations with an expectation of getting ripped off. Trump used the bankruptcy rules to avoid the repercussions of his own poor judgement and his investors paid the price while he laughed. That most certainly is looting: he used the force of the bankruptcy courts to avoid his payment obligations.