Will President Trump run for a second term?

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 5:13 pm

Mark

I'm looking forward to the debates.

Clinton won't be able to talk fast enough - she can't now.

The Clinton Administration your referring to was Bill Clinton - not Hillary. Your assuming with Bill at her side we'll reverse back 1992.

I don't want to go backwards.

Can't underestimate Trump - he won't be mowed over - remember that mouth of his? :yh_rotfl

We'll see where the votes fall.

Patsy

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 5:25 pm

Patsy Warnick;1498950 wrote: 1. The Clinton Administration your (sic) referring to was Bill Clinton - not Hillary.

2. Your (sic) assuming with Bill at her side we'll reverse back 1992.

3. We'll see where the votes fall.

Patsy1. The Clinton admin was both of them.

2. Yes, I'm assuming that.

3. Indeed.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 5:33 pm

Mark

I don't think Hillary wants to go backwards -1992 The Bill Administration wasn't good to her. Hillary will be in the Oval Office thinking of that Blue Dress - really?:wah:

You know you shouldn't assume.

Patsy

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:26 pm

Patsy Warnick;1498952 wrote: Mark

I don't think Hillary wants to go backwards -1992 The Bill Administration wasn't good to her. Hillary will be in the Oval Office thinking of that Blue Dress - really?:wah:

You know you shouldn't assume.

PatsyPatsy, a new Clinton admin will be going forward, not backward. Bill Clinton was limited by law to two terms, a limitation that FDR didn't have to deal with. Had he not been so limited, he would have easily earned a third term, maybe even a fourth.

Barack Obama wasn't one of our best presidents and he certainly wasn't one of our worst. He made health care available to all and kept the economy reasonably sound.

A new Clinton admin will raise the minimum wage, while a Trunk admin would be all for the rich and screw the workers, to say nothing of his outrageous rantings against immigrants.

So you vote for whomever you wish, or just stay home.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:40 pm

One good thing to come out of the campaign (thus far) is that the Democrats have a much clearer vision of what the younger voters want. I hope they have been listening. They have an opportunity to move forward and can benefit in this and future elections if they learn from the primaries.

On the other hand, the Republicans have a very clear view of what their base wants and it isn't pretty. Maybe they have always know and I just didn't pick up on all of the code words and phrases the politicians use every election.

I really hope Trump does't get the opportunity to mess things up further.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:03 pm

Mark

I stated from the beginning "we're all scared" and that I didn't care for either.

So don't be rude during a conversation & tell me to stay home.

Neither one has said as of yet How all the fixing will be done & hopefully during the debates some questions will be answered. Hopefully it will be a productive debate - like this thread.

I don't trust either one.

You seem to believe the Clinton Admin. will raise the minimum wage - Social Security needs a raise - it's usually $000.10 cents & it's not yearly. Minimum wage has never been answered, and is usually spread out thru the years - a gradual increase of very little - like "they" have done us Workers a favor.& at what cost?

Your basing your statements on assumption & trust to Clinton.

I can't trust either one.

debates will be interesting & voting will be tough.

Patsy

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:49 pm

Unless the November vote is a landslide for the Dems and they regain control of the senate, I'm not sure how either candidate can really deal with most of the problems Americans face. This congress has proved unwilling to work with Obama on just about anything. I can't see that situation changing if Hillary wins and the Dems don't pick up the necessary senate seats. I also don't see the current congress as working with Trump, unless Trump is willing to go along with what they want. Without congress cooperating, I don't really see much hope of the needed changes. The Republicans keep talking about trying to privatize Social Security. When W laid out his plan for that, half of the Wall St companies went under a year or two later. It is scary.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 8:15 pm

Wandrin

I agree with you- Congress would not work with Obama - will the current Congress work with Trump - no - I see Trump hitting them in their pocket to move their ass & work with him.

Will Congress work with Clinton - no - and I can't see her with any motivation/strategy to work together.

I have to ask - why does Trump want to be President? he's not a politician - he's never been a Senator or Governor - why would he now at 72 yrs. old want to be Pres.?

What's your answer to why now?? really curious

please don't say Ego

Patsy

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 8:41 pm

Patsy, I think it helps his "brand", and therefore both wallet and ego. I'm not sure he ever thought it would go this far. In the past, he has run or talked about running and got a lot of air time on the network news as a result. His business is primarily being paid to put his name on things and get the licensing fees. He could have another book ghostwritten for him (that he would of course claim credit for writing) and sell a lot of copies. He likes being famous. He likes to imagine himself as powerful. I think the success of the campaign took him by surprise, but now he has a chance at even more.

I have serious doubts that he actually wants to do the job, if elected. I expect that he would try to delegate as much of the actual job as possible and just be the figurehead. If that doesn't work for him, I'd expect he'd come up with some excuse and resign, to remain a celebrity without the burden of actual work. But it is scary what damage he could do.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:03 pm

Patsy Warnick;1498956 wrote: 1. So don't be rude during a conversation & tell me to stay home.

2. Social Security needs a raise - it's usually $000.10 cents & it's not yearly.

3. I can't trust either one.1. No rudeness was intended. You don't seem to like either candidate, so why bother? I suppose you could vote for a third-party candidate, or even for yourself, but what's the use?

2. I get $1131 every month and that's after deductions for medicare. I am not complaining.

3. See 1.

P.S. Wandrin, thanks for your intelligent contributions to this discussion!

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:07 pm

Wandrin

I never thought "it" would go this far.:wah:

I'm not sure he wants the job either - that's why I ask why?

When his daughter Ivanka spoke - she stated she would be beside her Dad - I instantly felt he would delegate the job to his kids.

I feel he'll run the Presidency like a business - sign off & others make the decision.

Clinton - I don't see any strength in her - I really feel she's not mentally healthy.

She speaks too slow - hell I want to fill in the blanks for her. I don't connect with her at all.

We have a scary outcome

I'm looking forward to the debates

Patsy

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:24 pm

Mark

That's why we have the DEBATES - to hear how they'll fix all the B.S. they both promise.

Can that sway one's vote - hell yes. so why bother & stay home really?

Mark - you stated Clinton would raise minimum wage - assuming that will happen.

And now your Worker Wage is great - well good for you - there are millions not as fortunate. talk about confused.

Don't call me the one ignorant

this is now not productive

Patsy

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:42 pm

Trump - One of his business associates said that he sees himself more as a chairman of the board than a CEO - he doesn't like to get involved in the details.

Hillary - If anything, I expect the Republicans in Congress to resist her even more than they have Obama. They have building up their hatred for her for a long time. Remember when Bill had her put together a basic plan for healthcare? The Citizens United case was about funding for a smear movie that was to be released during the 2008 election, back when they thought she would be the nominee.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:19 am

Patsy Warnick;1498962 wrote: 1. Mark - you stated Clinton would raise minimum wage - assuming that will happen.

2. And now your Worker Wage is great - well good for you - there are millions not as fortunate. talk about confused.

1. Yes, I stated that.

2. Now you are confused. Go back and read it again. I was referring to Social Security. You said it needed to be increased, I said I am quite content with it just as it is.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:14 am

Mark Aspam;1498949 wrote: Even apart from that, how many African-American votes do you think that Trump will get? How many Hispanic-American votes? We are talking about millions of votes here, and of course that's not even counting the millions and millions of non-minority votes.

I think it's worth pointing out that all Hispanic-American voters in the 2016 Presidential election are US citizens, while all the undocumented Mexicans presently resident in the USA are not US citizens and have no vote in this contest.

While all 14-16 million of the latter are presumably overwhelmingly anti-Trump, the estimated 13 million Hispanic-Americans who turn out to vote this year will be split to some extent on party lines. There may well be a large fraction who want the Mexicans presently resident in the USA who are not US citizens to become documented legally-resident US tax-payers, and who will consequently vote for the Republican ticket.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:02 am

spot;1498971 wrote: 1. I think it's worth pointing out that all Hispanic-American voters in the 2016 Presidential election are US citizens, while all the undocumented Mexicans presently resident in the USA are not US citizens and have no vote in this contest.

2. While all 14-16 million of the latter are presumably overwhelmingly anti-Trump, the estimated 13 million Hispanic-Americans who turn out to vote this year will be split to some extent on party lines. There may well be a large fraction who want the Mexicans presently resident in the USA who are not US citizens to become documented legally-resident US tax-payers, and who will consequently vote for the Republican ticket.1. That is, I think, pointing out the obvious. And yer pernt is wha?

2. I think the key phrase here is "to some extent". I don't doubt that Trump will receive some Hispanic votes, the number will be small, and of course we'll never know the exact figures because it's a secret ballot.

Also, most of the illegal Hispanics are probably living with legal relatives. They're not sleeping under bridges or in trash containers. Most of them, if they intend to stay, are probably at some stage on the way to becoming legal citizens.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:47 am

Mark Aspam;1498973 wrote: Most of them, if they intend to stay, are probably at some stage on the way to becoming legal citizens.
I find that extremely unlikely. If you have any relevant figures I'd be very pleased to see them. What are these stages to which you refer? What, since you rely on it for your "most", is the first stage of this process? What meaning do you ascribe to "probably"?

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:32 am

spot;1498974 wrote: I find that extremely unlikely. If you have any relevant figures I'd be very pleased to see them. What are these stages to which you refer? What, since you rely on it for your "most", is the first stage of this process? What meaning do you ascribe to "probably"?Pretty hard to have "relevant figures" on something like that. I think it's just common sense. Who would want to live indefinitely in a place where they are not only denied the privileges of citizenship but subject to arrest and deportation?

I lived in Germany for eight years, I was not a citizen but had "Permission to Stay" status which I renewed as required.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:38 am

Mark Aspam;1498980 wrote: Pretty hard to have "relevant figures" on something like that. I think it's just common sense. Who would want to live indefinitely in a place where they are not only denied the privileges of citizenship but subject to arrest and deportation?Nobody would want to, of course they wouldn't. But nobody in that position has a vote. That's why I wrote the line you disparaged with "pointing out the obvious. And yer pernt is wha?".

The Hispanics with a vote are none of them in that position and I think you're naive if you think the plight of non-citizen Hispanics is a major decider in the Hispanic voters' political thinking.

Perhaps this time you might consider my real point before throwing it out. What are these stages to which you refered? What, since you rely on it for your "most", is the first stage of this process? What meaning do you ascribe to "probably"? I don't think your "common sense" actually holds water.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:46 am

spot;1498981What are these stages to which you refered? wrote: I don't know exactly how the process works, I assume that it is subject to various factors. Had I remained in Germany I could have applied for permanent residence as a non-citizen or even for citizenship. I'm assuming that the process in the USA is more-or-less similar.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:50 am

Mark Aspam;1498982 wrote: I'm assuming that the process in the USA is more-or-less similar.I rarely find myself rolling in my chair paralyzed by laughter but just at the moment, that's what I'm doing. You cannot be serious. This is undocumented Mexicans we're talking about, they have rather fewer protections in American law and its enforcement than feral dogs.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:55 am

You seem to know more than I - surely there is a process for seeking legal admission, even if they have to return to Mexico and apply at the border.

In any case, not really a laughing matter.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:56 am

A illegal immigrant is just that - illegal

they have NO privileges & will never vote.

That's why Sheriff Joe Arpio is backing Trump.

The Southern States are full of illegals & plan to live that existence forever.

Illegals stay until & hopefully when caught & deported & then they try to cross the border again - continuous cycle.

The "process" in the U.S. is nothing similar to Germany.

Patsy

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:36 am

Patsy Warnick;1498985 wrote: A illegal immigrant is just that - illegal

they have NO privileges & will never vote.

That's why Sheriff Joe Arpio is backing Trump.

The Southern States are full of illegals & plan to live that existence forever.

Illegals stay until & hopefully when caught & deported & then they try to cross the border again - continuous cycle.

The "process" in the U.S. is nothing similar to Germany.

PatsyPatsy, I'm aware of all that, my point is that any illegal alien who wishes to become legal can do so in one manner or another. Those who are here for criminal purposes should of course be deported or imprisoned.

Now, having clarified that - I hope - I would like to comment on your earlier post regarding the presidential debates.

Unless I misread or misinterpreted your post, you seemed to be implying that the debates would consist of Hillary and Trump yelling at each other, with Trump the louder and therefore the presumed winner. Patsy, political debates don't work that way. Have you ever even watched one?

There is a moderator and usually a group of reporters and they ask questions of the candidates separately. First one, then the opposing candidate is allowed to reply.

The debates, which will begin shortly, will involve serious and in some cases complex matters of government. Hillary will have all the answers, whether you agree with her or not. Trump, in many cases, will not even have a notion of what they're talking about, and will simply run his mouth off. If you don't believe me, just watch.

But as I said previously, you can vote for the candidate of your choice or simply stay home on election day.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:05 am

Mark

I waited soooo long for this reply:yh_rotfl

First of all your the one who can not explain this "process" of yours or as you put it "one way or another".

Illegals from Mexico would have to go back to M. & apply for a Visa & go thru the legal process to stay in the U.S. and that's not happening.

If you watched the Convention? Sheriff Joe explained in simply terms for all to understand - even you.

Debates

I never stated & again your assuming - the mind reader you are - I never stated Trumps louder & therefore is the winner - good God why are you so negative?

I stated Clinton speaks slow - her motor skills are too slow to keep up with Trump.

Your assuming Trump will be quiet - he'll be interrupting - your assuming Trump is stupid like me.

Well that's why Trump lives in a Castle & your still digging ditches.

Patsy

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:37 am

Patsy Warnick;1498987 wrote: Your assuming Trump will be quiet - he'll be interrupting - your assuming Trump is stupid like me.

Well that's why Trump lives in a Castle & your still digging ditches.

PatsyNo, he won't be interrupting, that is not allowed. If he insisted on doing so, which he won't, the debate would be shut down.

And by the way, go back to grade school and learn the difference between your and you're.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:43 am

A brief interjection of surprise...

Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, apparently.

This is not a chap in need of the Vice Presidency, it's a chap in need of a competent weight-loss surgeon. My goodness he looks ill.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:02 am

Mark

your not capable of having a constructive conversation.

all you have is your & you're - funny you still understood.

Trump not allowed - he shouldn't of been allowed many things up to this point.

This debate between Clinton & Trump will be a circus.

Clinton & running mate are on T.V. right now making Kaine's opening speech. (CBS)

I have to go educate myself.

Patsy

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:15 am

Patsy Warnick;1498991 wrote: I have to go educate myself.

PatsyI can think of a better verb than 'educate' but that would be nasty, and I'm not a nasty person.

Patsy, debates have RULES, that's what makes them debates. Otherwise they would be arguments, discussions, or something else.

There is nothing wrong with digging ditches if that's what a person has to do to earn an HONEST living. Donald Trump's "Trump University" scam bilked hundreds of well-meaning but gullible people, separating them from their hard-earned money, whether from digging ditches or otherwise.

If that's the kind of individual you want to lead this nation, by all means vote for him.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:04 pm

Mark

Why do you insist on placing my vote?

Clinton's private e-mail issue will bury her. honest? trusting? Not

as you said those gullible people

but then there's plenty of dirt to dig up on both sides.

As far as illegal immigrants in our Country - educate yourself on your Country & legal admission.

Makes me question whether your legal since Spot knows more about the "process" & your not aware of the "process".

I'm also fully aware how debates are conducted - thank you though.

Patsy

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:24 pm

Patsy Warnick;1498994 wrote: 1. Clinton's private e-mail issue will bury her.

2. As far as illegal immigrants in our Country - educate yourself on your Country & legal admission.

Makes me question whether your(sic) legal since Spot knows more about the "process" & your(sic) not aware of the "process".

3. I'm also fully aware how debates are conducted - thank you though.

Patsy1. What nonsense. She misfiled certain emails for the sake of convenience, which she admits she should not have done. I couldn't care less. There is no doubt that there have always been mistakes made with regard to foreign affairs. That has always been the case, situations like that are hard to handle, and rarely if ever the fault of a single person. War is heck and it's not because of emails.

2. Well, I am from the midwest and such things have never been much of a problem here. I am still quite sure that illegal immigrants who are otherwise law-abiding can find paths to citizenship in one way or another.

3. Then you should know that he won't be shouting, interrupting, and making a fool of himself as you claimed - during the debate. Otherwise he does so constantly.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:28 pm

Trump has got our two most placid members at each other's throats.......................wait till he becomes President, there will be carnage.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:33 pm

On the citizenship issue.....my English daughter married an American serviceman, they married while he was in service and returned to America when his service ended.

It was a long process, and she had to jump through hoops to get her citizenship.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:34 pm

Bruv;1498996 wrote: .........wait till he becomes President....That will be a VERY long wait.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:41 pm

Mark Aspam;1498998 wrote: That will be a VERY long wait.

The whole world is holding it's breath.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:49 pm

Mark

Mid-west or not - you keep your blinders on.

As far as your "process" you can't explain & now you have no idea on legal or illegals.

I never said Trump would make a fool of himself - he's known for his mouth & God only knows what he'll say. that's the circus.

Bruv - citizenship is a long process - Mark stated go to the border & apply for papers.:wah:

Mark

Illegal immigrant is illegal - they're not on a probation period & handed documents and a flag. OMG

this is scary

Patsy

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:09 pm

spot;1498989 wrote: A brief interjection of surprise...

Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, apparently.

This is not a chap in need of the Vice Presidency, it's a chap in need of a competent weight-loss surgeon. My goodness he looks ill.Grover Cleveland was so huge that they had to tear out the bathtub in the White House living area to make room for a bigger one for his enormous bod.

Cleveland also admitted publicly that he had a bastard child (that poor woman!). He was elected president twice, with another president intervening.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:16 pm

Clinton needs to get out of those frumpy pant suits.

blah - boring

Patsy

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:28 pm

Patsy Warnick;1499005 wrote: Clinton needs to get out of those frumpy pant suits.

blah - boring

PatsyNow THERE is something we can agree on!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:15 pm

Patsy Warnick;1499005 wrote: Clinton needs to get out of those frumpy pant suits.

blah - boring

Patsy

Bills a transvestite ????

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:21 pm

So Clinton's running for Pres. & goes to the old closet from 1992.

Your running for Pres. - refresh yourself.

No she doesn't want any change - just the same rocking chair & watch our Country fall apart - nothing will change with Clinton - boring blah same same .

Bill's a transvestite - oh he was awarded the Blue Dress.:yh_rotfl

Patsy

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:52 pm

What? No critique of Trump's wardrobe? :-3

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:14 pm

Well there's Wandrin

it was the picture shown

Trump usually has a sharp expensive suit - his tie alone is a working mans weeks pay.

impressed yet? :yh_rotfl

Patsy

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:38 pm

Just pulling you leg a little. It seems some times that the tv news pundits spend more time talking about what a female politician is wearing than what she said.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:57 pm

I know

T.V.(reporters) didn't say anything negative regarding Trumps suit & tie - they can't afford his wardrobe.:wah: Trumps wife's dress comment was the designer & cost - which was very expensive.

Not sure if white was the right color choice for the event?

Trump family live in a different world than the common man.

Now Clinton was seen wearing a expensive designer coat - it was ugly - but it managed to rap around her.:wah:

I suppose Michelle Obama has no desire to run for Pres.??

When Clinton has her convention - she will be critiqued maybe torn apart by some - get rid of those pant suits so frumpy - highlight her hair - add life to her - she looks so drawn out - tired yawn..

she's boring

Patsy

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:10 pm

I've long ago lost track of what the styles are. To me, it makes perfect sense for a woman to wear pants, rather than a dress, especially when campaigning. And I have come to expect that the pundits will spend a lot of time talking about her clothes and hair -- they do the same thing when Michelle Obama speaks. It would be kinda fun, though, to see the reaction if she showed up for something wearing jeans and a T-shirt. They wouldn't stop talking about it for days!

It seems like male politicians almost always wear some slight variation on exactly the same thing -- day after day after day. And it always seems somewhat humorous to me that they are always wearing that leash around their necks, like they are waiting for someone to come along and lead them or take them for a walk.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:55 pm

Leash around the neck - guidance - or the cane to grab around the neck to pull them off stage.:wah:

Clinton could've worn jeans & a t-shirt while campaigning from state to state - she has to relate to different age groups - not just grandma's.

Clinton has worn pant suits since 1992. It's the same color top/jacket with matching pants - it's all she wears. it's so boring & stale.

Today with Kaine's opening acceptance speech - Clinton was in another pant suit.

Michelle O. clothes are fresh & now - her opening speech for Obama convention was a simple green dress & she wore a broach.

I will say I didn't care for Mrs. Trumps white dress - white almost looked like a bridesmaid dress - I didn't think white was appropriate. I can't remember her first name right now - out of sight - out of mind :yh_rotfl I found her difficult to understand. She is well educated - speaks 7 languages but I just want her to speak English clearly.

I'm open to jeans & t-shirt for Clinton - she could have a matching jean jacket to relate to the common person.

I'm rattling - get the cane..:yh_rotfl

Patsy

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:05 pm

What questions would you like them to ask in the debates (assuming Trump agrees)?

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:24 pm

Good question

I'd like to know how they plan to make the U.S. strong

there was a time we were strong & feared & that's no more.

We don't need to be feared - we need to show strength & unity.

you?

Patsy

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:39 pm

I'd like to know why having most of our troops overseas in 150 or so military bases helps the defense of the US. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to defense (and our economy) if those troops were in the US? I'd also like to know how they intend to boost the US economy. I'm sure that I'll think of more.