How in the hell "the old establishment" was making the party "irrelevant" by 2016 is beyond my comprehension.

2008 & 2012 were the last of the old R's establishment campaigns. During much of Obama's term, the transformation began with the Tea Party, which gave energy to changes that the establishment R's didn't particularly want, but couldn't stop. As you mention, it was Obama who lost about 1,000 local/state/federal seats round the country, but the Bush's, Romeny's, McCain's had little to do with that. It was grass roots conservatives, Tea Partiers, etc who were fed up and propelled it. The 2016 campaign proved that the old style establishment R's had become irrelevant, and many then became never-Trumpers, ignoring or disliking the changing dynamic of the party. The only disrespect I have for those individuals not seeing and listening to the voters, sometimes blocking instead of helping the more aggressive advancement of conservative and libertarian goals that were being asked for.

The tea party may have brought energy, but they certainly lost their soul. Weren't they supposed to be about financial responsibility? Wasn't their major issue deficit spending and the exploding debt? Apparently not, as the multiyear decline in deficit spending under Obama has reversed, the debt is at an all time high and exploding, and we're not even hearing crickets from anyone in the Republican party. It's almost like that is only an issue when the Democrats hold the presidency. So, if the tea party wasn't about fiscal responsibility, what were they really?

How in the hell "the old establishment" was making the party "irrelevant" by 2016 is beyond my comprehension.

2008 & 2012 were the last of the old R's establishment campaigns. During much of Obama's term, the transformation began with the Tea Party, which gave energy to changes that the establishment R's didn't particularly want, but couldn't stop. As you mention, it was Obama who lost about 1,000 local/state/federal seats round the country, but the Bush's, Romeny's, McCain's had little to do with that. It was grass roots conservatives, Tea Partiers, etc who were fed up and propelled it. The 2016 campaign proved that the old style establishment R's had become irrelevant, and many then became never-Trumpers, ignoring or disliking the changing dynamic of the party. The only disrespect I have for those individuals not seeing and listening to the voters, sometimes blocking instead of helping the more aggressive advancement of conservative and libertarian goals that were being asked for.

The tea party may have brought energy, but they certainly lost their soul. Weren't they supposed to be about financial responsibility? Wasn't their major issue deficit spending and the exploding debt? Apparently not, as the multiyear decline in deficit spending under Obama has reversed, the debt is at an all time high and exploding, and we're not even hearing crickets from anyone in the Republican party. It's almost like that is only an issue when the Democrats hold the presidency. So, if the tea party wasn't about fiscal responsibility, what were they really?

Much of the Tea Party's principles of birth have been overridden by the Birther President. Mark Meadows a Tea Party member has been appointed as the 4th Chief of Staff for Trump. Think about that - 4 Chief Of Staffs in a bit over 3 years. Sounds like a great and stable job to have. Blind loyalty to an autocrat is the primary qualification, and Meadows will fit that just fine. General Kelly - not so much.

[Edited on 3/8/2020 by MartinD28]

[Edited on 3/8/2020 by MartinD28]

Laugh at and belittle the President 'til your heart is content and then stop and ask yourself a serious question that follows the thread title... (Biden or Bernie..who ya got?)

Are you serious?...This is the best representation of the Democratic Party available?

A cantankerous old Socialist who believes taxing the wealthy will fix everything? And an old Senator who can't even attack the President's lack of ability to tell the truth on a consistent basis out of fear that his own track record of "stretching the truth" will come back and bite him in the a**?

Holy Shnykees

... A cantankerous old Socialist who believes taxing the wealthy will fix everything? ...

This is a viable plan because taxing the POOR doesn't produce the revenues needed to keep government, services and infrastructure up to date. You do understand that the "wealthy" also use and benefit from these programs, right?

It's been pointed out (by me and others) that through the years many companies have been given tax cuts or total exemption because they "provide jobs". These companies (largely) have responded by sending manufacturing jobs overseas. Many have simply not held up THEIR end of this bargain. To these guys I say, "pay your freakin' share!".

. . .the more aggressive advancement of conservative and libertarian goals . . .

Care to spell out a few? I am interested to know where you guys are taking all this, what your end game is.

When is there ever an "end game" when it comes to politics? Take the abortion issue. One would have thought we had reached a reasonable end game with widely available abortion and easily available contraceptives. But the Left then pushed for taxpayer funding for those things to make them free for many, and looser definitions of abortion which looks more like infanticide in places where its been instituted. The Right was already pushing back on that definition in a few places (but they were never going to successfully roll it back in any serious way), however the new abortion initiatives in some states are so horrific to some that the war is on again - no "end game" in sight.

The last two years of headlong progressive shift from the D's leave the Right with an embarrassment of riches to fight against. Open borders? Eliminate ICE? Medicare for all - citizens or anyone who can cross the border? Federal benefits for all? Free college for all? Green New Deal? Gun confiscation? Ending the 2nd Amendment? Reparations? Sanctuary states/cities? A "young trans person" to help choose Secretary of Education? Eliminate the Electoral College? Every one of those proposals have been expressed and backed by Presidential candidates over the past six months, giving opponents a huge range of issues to fight against.

Besides those, my personal interests are just a few small things...

-- Repeal the 16th Amendment, abolish the IRS, and replace all Federal collections applied to US citizens with a single national sales tax system modeled along the lines of "The Fair Tax" proposal.
-- Abolish the 17th Amendment and go back to state legislatures picking Senators.
-- Strong enforcement of border and immigration laws. End birthright citizenship.
-- Balance the Federal budget.

... A cantankerous old Socialist who believes taxing the wealthy will fix everything? ...

This is a viable plan because taxing the POOR doesn't produce the revenues needed to keep government, services and infrastructure up to date. You do understand that the "wealthy" also use and benefit from these programs, right?

It's been pointed out (by me and others) that through the years many companies have been given tax cuts or total exemption because they "provide jobs". These companies (largely) have responded by sending manufacturing jobs overseas. Many have simply not held up THEIR end of this bargain. To these guys I say, "pay your freakin' share!".

And there aren't enough rich people to raise collections to the levels needed to fund the spending proposals of the Left without running the wealth producers away.

Static thinking is always a flaw on the Left. They look at the wealthy, whip out a calculator, and think they can apply "x" percent extra tax and be assured of "y" new $'s coming in. They never stop to think that these people, who have the most resources available to them, will change their behavior if the burden becomes egregious enough. And don't take the Buffett/Gates virtue signalling comments to heart when they say their not paying enough. They're just playing a CYA stunt. If they wanted to really wanted set a new example, they would have started paying more years ago.

And then the whole "companies aren't paying" nonsense. Companies don't pay taxes - people do. Built in to the prices charged for products and services from every company is their cost of doing business - taxes included. Customers - people - pay for those. So business taxes are a fraud, since they are only a pass-through to taxing the end user - you and me - via prices.

Let's at least give Bernie credit for claiming it isn't exclusively the rich that need to pay more taxes. He's said numerous times that the middle class will also see their taxes rise in order to pay for the plans he envisions. A few of you in this very thread and others continue to neglect to mention this rather important fact.

Let's at least give Bernie credit for claiming it isn't exclusively the rich that need to pay more taxes. He's said numerous times that the middle class will also see their taxes rise in order to pay for the plans he envisions. A few of you in this very thread and others continue to neglect to mention this rather important fact.

He also has the balls to legalize cannabis. Taxes from this venture will offset the costs of some of his proposed programs. This will also send a message to Washington - a friendly reminder that we do not elect our "leaders" to be our mommies and daddies.

Let's at least give Bernie credit for claiming it isn't exclusively the rich that need to pay more taxes. He's said numerous times that the middle class will also see their taxes rise in order to pay for the plans he envisions. A few of you in this very thread and others continue to neglect to mention this rather important fact.

He also has the balls to legalize cannabis. Taxes from this venture will offset the costs of some of his proposed programs. This will also send a message to Washington - a friendly reminder that we do not elect our "leaders" to be our mommies and daddies.

Legalizing pot will happen. Unfortunately it won't happen in the time frame most of us would want it to. It should have happened over time for practical reasons, for medical benefit, and for revenue expansion. Unfortunately there's enough crusty old and narrow minded thinking that runs government. Bernie could advocate for it, but can you see Mitch and the GOP dominated Senate going along for the high ride on this? It's going to to take several more cycles and turnover in Congress before our grandchildren can look back and say, "Grandpa, I can't believe weed wasn't legal for most of your lifetime."

Let's at least give Bernie credit for claiming it isn't exclusively the rich that need to pay more taxes.

Absolutely not. More Taxes are not the answer to anything, the freaking Gov't can not manage the money coming in now. More plans and programs are not the answer for anything either. Create jobs, stimulate the economy, put people to work, give them the opportunity to carry their own weight. I think Bernie and his "new ideas" are nothing more than a huge anchor...In NO way is it OK to punish successful people and corporations just because some think, they are "Earning too much"...What a load of crap.

He's said numerous times that the middle class will also see their taxes rise in order to pay for the plans he envisions.

Yet another bad idea, penalize the people who are already struggling to "get by" so that others may prosper. BS. You want to help those in need?...Donate some of your paycheck, but do not demand or "suggest" that others share in your vision by taking still more out of the average Joe's pocket.

Only one group chose disrespect via name calling and harsh characterization, but whatever you need to do. Project away!

Seriously? Considering the source, that is the embarrassing joke of the day.

Let's at least give Bernie credit for claiming it isn't exclusively the rich that need to pay more taxes.

Absolutely not. More Taxes are not the answer to anything, the freaking Gov't can not manage the money coming in now. More plans and programs are not the answer for anything either. Create jobs, stimulate the economy, put people to work, give them the opportunity to carry their own weight. I think Bernie and his "new ideas" are nothing more than a huge anchor...In NO way is it OK to punish successful people and corporations just because some think, they are "Earning too much"...What a load of crap.

He's said numerous times that the middle class will also see their taxes rise in order to pay for the plans he envisions.

Yet another bad idea, penalize the people who are already struggling to "get by" so that others may prosper. BS. You want to help those in need?...Donate some of your paycheck, but do not demand or "suggest" that others share in your vision by taking still more out of the average Joe's pocket.

Anyone who considers paying taxes as a punishment for earning too much really should really not consider himself an American. If you are lucky enough to get to live and work in this country, you should be happy to contribute to the running of this country. If you're not paying your fair share, then you are just as much a taker as the imaginary welfare queen.

Let's at least give Bernie credit for claiming it isn't exclusively the rich that need to pay more taxes.

Absolutely not. More Taxes are not the answer to anything, the freaking Gov't can not manage the money coming in now. More plans and programs are not the answer for anything either. Create jobs, stimulate the economy, put people to work, give them the opportunity to carry their own weight. I think Bernie and his "new ideas" are nothing more than a huge anchor...In NO way is it OK to punish successful people and corporations just because some think, they are "Earning too much"...What a load of crap.

He's said numerous times that the middle class will also see their taxes rise in order to pay for the plans he envisions.

Yet another bad idea, penalize the people who are already struggling to "get by" so that others may prosper. BS. You want to help those in need?...Donate some of your paycheck, but do not demand or "suggest" that others share in your vision by taking still more out of the average Joe's pocket.

Anyone who considers paying taxes as a punishment for earning too much really should really not consider himself an American. If you are lucky enough to get to live and work in this country, you should be happy to contribute to the running of this country. If you're not paying your fair share, then you are just as much a taker as the imaginary welfare queen.

I do not and have never considered paying taxes, "Punishment" and I agree they are necessary for the country to continue to function. Everyone needs roads, schools, the Judiciary, elected officials, the police, etc. What I do take exception to is a cranky old socialist coming along and claiming the wealthy are the problem, I call BS. But I do agree with you on one thing, we are lucky to live here and are blessed with the opportunity to educate ourselves, create a livelihood and in doing so, hire accountants who can show us the best ways to "beat the system" legally through investments. Tell me why anyone should be taxed more than anyone else merely for being successful? I do not consider the re-distribution of wealth to be "American" in anyway, shape or form...Your mileage may vary.

I do not and have never considered paying taxes, "Punishment" and I agree they are necessary for the country to continue to function. Everyone needs roads, schools, the Judiciary, elected officials, the police, etc. What I do take exception to is a cranky old socialist coming along and claiming the wealthy are the problem, ...

I don't believe I've seen or heard anybody BLAMING wealthy people for problems that include infrastructure, healthcare and education. A "flat tax" typically will not work. This amount might be insignificant to a professional but it might equate a huge chunk of the take-home pay of wage laborer. "Paying to the best of each's ability" is probably a better model.

Believe it or not, I do have some "conservative" in me. I do not believe that money is the solution to every problem. I am for some form of "socialized medicine" - and I don't even care if you call it that. There are two "special needs" children in my extended family. Both of these kids have medical expenses that would be tough for even a WEALTHY honest person to pay. I have had two friends who died because they didn't have money or insurance to go see a doctor. It's similar to the gun control problem (for many). Not a problem until you or a loved one ends up in an active shooter situation. I am happy to know that you do not fall into one of the "needy" groups.

I don't believe I've seen or heard anybody BLAMING wealthy people for problems that include infrastructure, healthcare and education.

They do not blame those people as individuals, but they do blame the system that allowed people to become wealthy rather than having a system in place that directs more money towards labor, public interests and welfare programs which benefits the majority and less money to the individual wealth a the few. And the system is influenced if not crafted by people in positions of power and wealth for their own benefit - so in effect, wealthy people are blamed for these problems. I mean, sure, some just play by the rules in front of them, all while others in lobbyist groups and people of influence work to ensure legislation and policy goes a certain way.

Here is where I'm at...the US economic system is a fantastic engine. It is undeniable however that more benefits of the system have gone towards the top vs the bottom. And I am fine stating that the top of the food chain, who often invest more and risk more, should stand to gain more. However, it is too disproportionate - the value of the blue collar or unskilled or even educated disposable/replaceable labor force is not respected enough and too often than not these groups don't share in the success enough. Globalization is as much to blame as anything else. Allowing foreign companies into our market with competitive advantages and allowing US companies to seek low input costs globally at the expense of US workers means those benefits go to the top and rather than the bottom here - it lifts people out of poverty in other countries, all while putting some people closer to poverty in our country. I don't care about a middle class in India. I can about a middle class here. US companies have no commitment to their labor force, it is a commitment to their board of directors and shareholders that dictate their decisions and to a point I am ok with that. So then, the US federal government must structure a system that protects the interest of the workers who can fall victim to unfair imports and domestic outsourcing. But because the fox guards the hen house, that never happens in a meaningful way.

I do not and have never considered paying taxes, "Punishment" and I agree they are necessary for the country to continue to function. Everyone needs roads, schools, the Judiciary, elected officials, the police, etc. What I do take exception to is a cranky old socialist coming along and claiming the wealthy are the problem, ...

I don't believe I've seen or heard anybody BLAMING wealthy people for problems that include infrastructure, healthcare and education. A "flat tax" typically will not work. This amount might be insignificant to a professional but it might equate a huge chunk of the take-home pay of wage laborer. "Paying to the best of each's ability" is probably a better model.

Believe it or not, I do have some "conservative" in me. I do not believe that money is the solution to every problem. I am for some form of "socialized medicine" - and I don't even care if you call it that. There are two "special needs" children in my extended family. Both of these kids have medical expenses that would be tough for even a WEALTHY honest person to pay. I have had two friends who died because they didn't have money or insurance to go see a doctor. It's similar to the gun control problem (for many). Not a problem until you or a loved one ends up in an active shooter situation. I am happy to know that you do not fall into one of the "needy" groups.

Rusty, thanks for sharing these thoughts and I understand that not everyone during their lifetime finds themselves in a position of having to traverse these very difficult paths in life. Throughout my life and the lives of my friends and family there have been tough times, my Father having been an officer in the USAF, reared us to believe that you are in control of your own future, when times get rough, you overcome by working harder, at times harder than you believed possible. If you have an abundance, you volunteer and offer a hand up to those who require it. It is because of these beliefs that I fight when the Government tells me that I MUST help or that it is somehow my obligation, it is not and will never be.

A "flat tax" typically will not work.

"Socialism" typically, has never worked. Bernie would be a disaster not only because of the concept, but because of the mindset and agenda that would be pushed forward that if you've an issue, the Government will take care of you. If you are sick, poor or hungry, the Government will deliver, this is simply not the idea of Government as laid down by the Constitution. To me Bernie is absolutely clueless, things must change here, Education must evolve to include the teaching of the importance of seizing opportunities, to rise up and take life at full speed, that the Government is not going to provide, only you can be responsible for your future. See people who are hungry? Invite them to your table. Take action, but please do not make the judgement that this is an issue that MUST be shared by everyone and those who do not are somehow cold-hearted, perhaps they are doing everything in their power and grasp just to take care of their own loved ones.

I don't care about a middle class in India. I can about a middle class here.

On this, we can certainly agree.

Is Trump saying liberals MUST agree with the border wall?

Since there's no proof that other methods work (enforcement, "technical" solutions, etc.), what is the argument against? Unless Trump and his party can secure super majorities, the immigration laws are not gonna change in a direction to limit or control what happens at that border. Neither will significant resources change to enforce over-stayed visas, stop birthright citizenry, or clear the 1.3 million cases on the immigration docket.

Recent trends of the Mexican gov't helping slow the flow of immigrants at the border is encouraging, but who knows how long that lasts.

So what positive benefits are there for the average lower to middle income American to having an essentially uncontrolled border? Does cheap labor, exploited human traffic, low-to-no skilled workers, drug mules, new non-contributing benefit recipients, or profitable human smuggling for Mexican cartels help the vast majority of Americans in any way? If not - and I can't imagine why anyone wants those things - then why is anyone opposed to the wall or any combination of measures to clean up this mess?

then why is anyone opposed to the wall or any combination of measures to clean up this mess?

One thought is because it is really easy for the left to blame the belief that the wall will actually work on a "Hatred of brown people" which conveniently fits the "President Trump is a racist" mantra Democrats so dearly use as their "go to".

Maybe some of the plans offered by the Democrats will work:

Sanctuary cities
The suggested dismantlement of I.C.E.
Driver's Licences for Illegals
The claim of asylum
More guards at points of entry
Amnesty for over staying your visa limitations
Health insurance for people crossing illegally

Maybe not.

Since there's no proof that other methods work (enforcement, "technical" solutions, etc.), what is the argument against? Unless Trump and his party can secure super majorities, the immigration laws are not gonna change in a direction to limit or control what happens at that border. Neither will significant resources change to enforce over-stayed visas, stop birthright citizenry, or clear the 1.3 million cases on the immigration docket.

Recent trends of the Mexican gov't helping slow the flow of immigrants at the border is encouraging, but who knows how long that lasts.

So what positive benefits are there for the average lower to middle income American to having an essentially uncontrolled border? Does cheap labor, exploited human traffic, low-to-no skilled workers, drug mules, new non-contributing benefit recipients, or profitable human smuggling for Mexican cartels help the vast majority of Americans in any way? If not - and I can't imagine why anyone wants those things - then why is anyone opposed to the wall or any combination of measures to clean up this mess?

My post wasn't debating the effectiveness of a border wall. I'm not against the wall itself. But when you combine the idea of a wall, with who is selling it, with his 30-year history of being a late night punchline, on top of the way he delivered the idea during his campaign, you can't tell me it's about national security. And I wonder why the right is afraid to say they support the forceful symbolism of it. You talk about leading a revolution, you elected a thug, established dominance, restored greatness, but when push comes to shove, I see a lot of cowering and excuses, and people on the right not speaking from the heart. We all know it's his vanity wall, and a big F you to liberals and illegal immigrants. We all know it's not about national security, so what do you expect us to think when we hear those lines?

As for my post, I was asking about a mindset of feeling like a Presidents' policy is some personal attack. I'm always curious to discuss that with people.

I respect you saying you're not against the wall itself. Its been so apparent for Republicans and conservatives, for so long, that its a cornerstone of Democrat policy to gain and consolidate power that its impressive to hear someone who is presumably from the other side of the political spectrum say that.

I think its simple why he keeps working that agenda item - his base supports it. The rallies always light up when he says it. Passions have not dimmed on the topic, so why would he drop it?

If there was a serious effort to combine the wall with other measures, it is potentially about national security. Who knows who is crossing that border and what their intent is? Who knows what's being trucked into, flown over, or tunneled under? I'm afraid though that there is so much corruption associated with such activities that it will take much more than a wall alone to shut off those things.

As to the inevitable "when is Mexico gonna pay for it?" snicker, yeah, that was a dumb thing to say without more explanation. I always thought he'd someday explain that by saying that tarriffs would be applied, or incentives offered to bring back industries, so that the net effect would be to have Mexico pay one way or another. He never mentioned that, which I think was a failure. But at least some of it is getting repaired and some new sections built, which is more than was happening otherwise.

Since it's now obvious that Trump's go to line of "Who is going to pay for the wall" has become nothing more than words, and the American taxpayers and other priorities have been raided to show the Trump can get a few miles built, what's next? Is he going to revive his catch phrase this fall?

Where's the money coming from to pay for his promise of a wall? His actions so far are questionable. How about his desire to cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security and now wanting to cut the payroll tax? All of this should trigger a great rise in GDP and find plenty of excess funds for the Great Wall. I'll bet Larry Kudlow can convince those who don't know $hit about economics that this is a great idea and a viable option.

If he gets his cuts as desired, do you think that those who vote for him will say, "That's great. Mr Prez will you cut my Medicare some more, and I really don't need my social security? You're doing a great job, King MAGA - just let me keep my arsenal and keep appointing anti choice judges."

just let me keep my arsenal and keep appointing anti choice judges.

You make believing in the 2nd Amendment and being Pro-Life sound like a bad thing.

just let me keep my arsenal and keep appointing anti choice judges.

You make believing in the 2nd Amendment and being Pro-Life sound like a bad thing.

180 school shootings - 356 victims in 10 years. Hey! This is only my opinion, but it seems to me that the 2nd Amendment is the antithesis of Pro-Life. Of course I'm no conservative Christian or anything. 😉

just let me keep my arsenal and keep appointing anti choice judges.

You make believing in the 2nd Amendment and being Pro-Life sound like a bad thing.

180 school shootings - 356 victims in 10 years. Hey! This is only my opinion, but it seems to me that the 2nd Amendment is the antithesis of Pro-Life. Of course I'm no conservative Christian or anything. 😉

X2, Rusty. Your post is accurate.

Those who equate restricting...say arsenals...as anti second amendment is a foil. For the umpteenth time, practicality matters. I guess some believe that every family should have the right to have bazookas and to have tanks parked in their driveways. Otherwise we trample on the second amendment?

Can you visualize someone sitting on their porch with a bazooka waiting to fend off against the dreaded government? We are so far removed from the original concept of militias these days, but there are those that still cling to it. The good people on both sides that Trump spoke of in Charlottesville...the ones with the tiki torches might disagree.

Since it's now obvious that Trump's go to line of "Who is going to pay for the wall" has become nothing more than words, and the American taxpayers and other priorities have been raided to show the Trump can get a few miles built, what's next? Is he going to revive his catch phrase this fall?

Revive it? It never went away. Today he tweeted that "We Need The Wall More Than Ever!" to protect against the coronavirus. "Going up fast!" Not sure what's going up fast - the number of COVID19 cases in the US (approx. 700) or the wall itself. BTW, Mexico has 7 confirmed cases.

Revive it? It never went away. Today he tweeted that "We Need The Wall More Than Ever!" to protect against the coronavirus. "Going up fast!" Not sure what's going up fast - the number of COVID19 cases in the US (approx. 700) or the wall itself. BTW, Mexico has 7 confirmed cases.

I have no idea what Trump tweets - part of the problem with not having regularly scheduled press conferences..I have no tweeter (yes I did laugh) and do not seek out Presidential tweats, if the media does't report it how are people to know - my wife follows hime (she can't stand him) so sometimes I hear from her.

Anyway, he had just said in a press conference last week the southern border didn't appear to be a problem for corona virus - now he is saying it is via tweet?

Bad night for Bernie

I guess some believe that every family should have the right to have bazookas and to have tanks parked in their driveways.

If this is the bullet point in the argument against the 2nd amendment, I agree. Who needs a tank and a bazooka?

I do not and have never considered paying taxes, "Punishment" and I agree they are necessary for the country to continue to function. Everyone needs roads, schools, the Judiciary, elected officials, the police, etc. What I do take exception to is a cranky old socialist coming along and claiming the wealthy are the problem, ...

I don't believe I've seen or heard anybody BLAMING wealthy people for problems that include infrastructure, healthcare and education. A "flat tax" typically will not work. This amount might be insignificant to a professional but it might equate a huge chunk of the take-home pay of wage laborer. "Paying to the best of each's ability" is probably a better model.

Believe it or not, I do have some "conservative" in me. I do not believe that money is the solution to every problem. I am for some form of "socialized medicine" - and I don't even care if you call it that. There are two "special needs" children in my extended family. Both of these kids have medical expenses that would be tough for even a WEALTHY honest person to pay. I have had two friends who died because they didn't have money or insurance to go see a doctor. It's similar to the gun control problem (for many). Not a problem until you or a loved one ends up in an active shooter situation. I am happy to know that you do not fall into one of the "needy" groups.

Rusty, thanks for sharing these thoughts and I understand that not everyone during their lifetime finds themselves in a position of having to traverse these very difficult paths in life. Throughout my life and the lives of my friends and family there have been tough times, my Father having been an officer in the USAF, reared us to believe that you are in control of your own future, when times get rough, you overcome by working harder, at times harder than you believed possible. If you have an abundance, you volunteer and offer a hand up to those who require it. It is because of these beliefs that I fight when the Government tells me that I MUST help or that it is somehow my obligation, it is not and will never be.

A "flat tax" typically will not work.

"Socialism" typically, has never worked. Bernie would be a disaster not only because of the concept, but because of the mindset and agenda that would be pushed forward that if you've an issue, the Government will take care of you. If you are sick, poor or hungry, the Government will deliver, this is simply not the idea of Government as laid down by the Constitution. To me Bernie is absolutely clueless, things must change here, Education must evolve to include the teaching of the importance of seizing opportunities, to rise up and take life at full speed, that the Government is not going to provide, only you can be responsible for your future. See people who are hungry? Invite them to your table. Take action, but please do not make the judgement that this is an issue that MUST be shared by everyone and those who do not are somehow cold-hearted, perhaps they are doing everything in their power and grasp just to take care of their own loved ones.

I've always wondered if those who call for a flat tax realize their taxes will go up if they are middle or lower class? If the rich people pay less, you will end up paying the difference. But hey, if you're willing to pay more so that Larry Ellison can buy yet another helicopter with his tax savings, well, we have a different opinion on fair taxation.

I have no idea what Trump tweets - part of the problem with not having regularly scheduled press conferences..I have no tweeter (yes I did laugh) and do not seek out Presidential tweats, if the media does't report it how are people to know - my wife follows hime (she can't stand him) so sometimes I hear from her.

Anyway, he had just said in a press conference last week the southern border didn't appear to be a problem for corona virus - now he is saying it is via tweet?

We should know by now that Trump contradicts himself multiple times on the same day so what he's said in the past doesn't matter.

We also know that announcing domestic or foreign policy via tweet isn't the best way for a prez to communicate. Can you imagine being on his staff & having to check his middle-of-the-night tweets before going to work?

You don't need a twitter account to know what he's tweeting. I read that in 3 sports-related articles re COVID19 complete w/screenshots of the tweet. By the time you set up an account, he'll have tweeted contradictions on about 5 topics. You're better off w/o it.