Ah yes...the "other great leaders". Haha... I think my personal fav is Pol Pot, though.

There is a long and sordid history to this that most of the public knows little or nothing about since it tends to hit a small minority.

I say: those absolutely corrupt are attracted to the temptations of power.

The average man on the street are the elite, the value producer, the value creator...while those corrupted by money and power are simply the great unwashed.

I agree; it is moronic. But here is why (well, one of the reasons, anyway) people tend to believe this argument: It is government that is specifically chartered to create and execute polices for the public good. This being the case, how could it fail to achieve those lofty goals, at least most of the time and for most people. Not only that, but the people chartered with doing these great things are specifically trained to do them - eg. political science majors, public policy administrators, etc., ad nauseam. Governments and other organizations like charities are the only organizations with such a charter and staffed with people with these good intentions, so how could anything ever go wrong. Corporations generally don't have either of these attributes. So, in many people's minds, it quite reasonable to let government do it - "it" being most anything you can think of.

I don't post that many things on here, but I hope you can tell I don't buy into this line of thinking myself. But many others (and they DO vote) do think this way.

A question for other Gulchers is how can people who think along these lines be convinced otherwise?

Cheers Blarman. Glad you enjoyed it as much As I.

Wiggys, your observation is spot on. Living on the east side of the front range, I would routinely see 200+ rail cars hauling Colorado coal to the power plants in the midwest on UniuonPacific tracks that paralleled I-70 on my drive to DIA. Now they are almost non existent. The fraud of global warming has destroyed numerous, formerly prosperous industries, all in the name of "the public good" but based on the phony science on socialism's useful idiot aiming their guns at free markets and capitalism.
Cheers

Socialism's body count STARTS at 100 million.
Every time they prevail, those who helped them either shut up out of fear and shame, or whine, "But it wasn't supposed to turn out like this."

amazing that people dont understand that she is selling herself and her favors for money at our expense.

Just exactly what they got last time - a bailout if the markets go south again.

Excellent. Thanks for the correction and additional insight.

We dont own our land and homes at this point anyway. I am allowed to "buy" it, build on it, and have to maintain it, BUT I dont own it in the strict sense anymore. Stop paying asset tax on the building and you lose the whole thing. Dont get a building permit and they tear it down

YEAH. its about time. Hillary gets $200k speaking fees??? I wonder what Goldman expects in return.

Eminent domain under the Constitution was supposed to be used only for "public use", not "public purposes", and then only for the very limited functions of government property prescribed in the Constitution. The Supreme Court expanded "use" to "purposes". That was the excuse in the Kelo decision that Trump likes so much. Under fascism, private development is mingled with government and declared to be a "public purpose".

Until the beginning of the Progressive era near the end of the 19th century, eminent domain was only rarely imposed by the Federal government (in contrast to the states). Since then it has become a nightmare at all levels of government, with the Supreme Court expanding the power under the Constitution in accordance with statist desires.

Eminent domain "comes up" all the time in the drive for Federal acquisition to expand parks and wilderness at the expense of private property owners. The degree to which it is imposed depends on the money they have and who is running the Interior Dept. The last thing we need in the White House is a demagogue who openly proclaims that "eminent domain is wonderful" and Federal lands are "magnificent". Stop trying to dismiss this as irrelevant.

I agree completely Blarman

I am pretty sure mr. Trump does take contributions from individual donors but not the bundle types that try and attach strings. The organized parties created this all by being unresponsive to the electorate. The Bernie types want more redistribution of other's wealth created though the abilities. The RNC has ignored the desires of the electorate who gave them landslide victories in the past 3 congressional elections and in most of the state elections. So now we have a revolt against the donor class and the cronies capitalism recipients on those donoation.
Cheers

We've been dealing with mob rule for years. Neither Trump nor Sanders is inventing this stuff. The vote for them is a shot across the bow of the Rs and Ds, letting them know that the populace will endure a pyrrhic victory, rather than let them continue their shenanigans. You can't act like they have for decades, then bemoan the lack of sanity.

The socialist argument that man can't be trusted, but the government (made up of men) can is an oxymoron, or maybe it's just moronic.

Rubio was very annoying. He would throw something out and then throw something else out, and then something else out. Its not a debate, but both Cruz and Robio were just trying to make Trump look bad any way they could. It was annoying and a waste of time.
I am not sure at all that the "debates" were more than opportunities for the media to sell ads. They told me nothing I didnt already know- both for the democrats and repubs.
The more people pick on Trump, the more I want him in there, because its usually hidden agendas that cause people to hate one or another. Trump takes no contributions, which none of the other candidates can claim, so he isnt beholden to special interests. THAT is one of the big advantages of Trump.

Add to what i said thus far in layoffs the fact that today I read that sports authority has filed chapter 11 and is closing 140 stores, so how many more will join the unemployment line. Of course they have an additional 323 stores to close. How many more mom and pop store will then close since they will not have customers since they their customers don't now have jobs.

"An example is Rubio and Cruz, who were so annoying in the last debate making claims and not even giving Trump a chance to respond."

Uh, even the Washington Examiner showed that Trump had more than ten minutes more talking time than any other candidate (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/who.... He spoke for 30 minutes and his next closest competitor only 20. If he's not using that time effectively, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. And the moderators more than covered for Trump several times when Cruz came after him, so I'm not buying the sympathy argument either.

(I listened to Hannity the other day and his campaign spokesman was an effective mirror of Trump: he monopolized the airtime and filled it with mostly empty accusations about the other candidates instead of definite actions Trump would take. Even Sean got tired of it and he's a closet Trump supporter.)

What struck me in the last two debates was that Trump was mostly hot air. I'm not a fan of Rubio, but he had some really effective zingers when Trump attempted to deflect, like in the Trump University and the "statute of limitations on lies" comments. When asked what he would do to fix healthcare, he again got zinged because he repeated the same thing five times and had no new ideas to add. (Of course, that's probably because healthcare is a position on which "The Donald" is progressive.)

Trump was ill-prepared for the last two debates and it showed. He needs to be able to articulate policy instead of wasting his time calling his opponents liars. Rubio is an easy mark for his Gang-of-Eight participation and it plays well into Trump's immigration policy. He should be hammering that point. But in order to do that, he has to know his own policy statements backwards, forwards, and inside out. They should be a part of him - not just words on his website. He should be able to call up the statistics that support his position and show that his opponents' attacks are empty. His other major liability is that he has no political history to call on as evidence of his positions. What political legacy he has is limited to campaign contributions - mostly to Democrats. Both Rubio but especially Cruz can point to their histories of action and results.

The "Black Book of Communism" documents 177 million people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century. With another 30 million killed in wars, it shows the people's own governments are more dangerous than wars.

Absolutely, i just read in the local Grand Junction, Colorardo paper that the North Fork Valley is now operating one coal mine after the closing of the coal mine in Paonia was closed. These mines were owned by Kentucky based Bowie Resources Partners. From what I can surmise about 600 people are out of work.
Then I read that Union Pacific Railroad has so far gotten rid of 4100 people in a 23 state area of the west because they aren't moving coal from Colorado as well as other coal mines in the west.They have idles 1500 locomotives, now in storage. We have probably 250 here in G.J.
I do not care who of the republicans is elected that person will not turn things around because with the help of the republicans during his 2 terms as president 0 has accomplished so much destruction of the world economy by damaging the US economy that resurrecting it will be monumental. Those fools in the congress both rep and dem are as illiterate as any group on the planet. My estimate was 20 years before the complete crash and now i think that it will be sooner.

As to the bankruptcies, I would note that we had a pretty bad recession which resulted in LOTS of bankruptcies involving real estate- not to mention the investment banking firms that went under. BK isnt great, but business does have risks, unlike politics which just seems to cover over its mistakes and no one cares.

Spending is the problem of course. But I doubt any of the candidates are going to be able to actually reduce it in the next 4 years. Hildebeast and Sanders would radically increase spending most likely.

Foreign affairs. I think Trump's style would get us more respect internationally. Obama/Kerry/Clinton just resulted in less respect. Respect reduces the chances of accidental war, and would keep us out of useless wars like we seem to get into all the time- with no clear objectives or even a way to pay for them.

Trump has been under constant attack from all sides because he is an outsider and threatens the status quo. He gets hammered all the time and its hard to stand up there and defend yourself constantly. An example is Rubio and Cruz, who were so annoying in the last debate making claims and not even giving Trump a chance to respond.
Rubio is a bit slick for me. He just talks, but I really doubt there is anything there that he really has done. Cruz is a religious zealot, better than Hildebeast, but I doubt he would be good at foreign relations or convincing anyone of anything.