Please tell me all about them.  And tell me how much he made vs. how much he inherited.  Oh, that's right, you can't.  You don't have any access to anything other than his ramblings because he's the only presidential candidate in recent history to not release tax returns.

The Trump Organization has 515 subsidiaries. Are you trying to imply that all of that was inherited and that Donald Trump was not responsible for any growth of the organization?

 It's not difficult to spend a bit of time researching the various business subsidiaries and see the numbers on them, but that would detract from your liberal mindset and talking points.

 So back to your two heroes, Obama and Clinton.   Tell us about Obama's involvement in private industry that makes him knowledgeable on how a business works?  Which companies did Obama oversee, produce a budget, hire people and make a payroll for?   Or even, other than being a "community organizer", what has he actually done outside of politics?   What, you say he wrote 2 books about himself?   Gee, forensic analyst have determined he didn't even write those books himself but used a ghost writer instead (a guy named Bill Ayers, but that's another story).   Oh, you say Obama taught constitutional law and said he was a law professor.  But the University of Chicago said he was only a lecturer and was never a professor.

 What about Obama's time in the legislature? You know, where the majority of his votes were "present" and he never introduced any legislation?  No accomplishments either.   And then we have his lackluster time in the US Senate, again a huge nothing, nothing notable.

 Now let's get to Hillary Clinton, as Obama said was the "most qualified to be president".   Let's see, here we have a lawyer who got fired from the watergate committee for ethics, then goes on to be First Lady with Bill Clinton where she proclaimed that she was a "co-president" in his administration although no position ever existed.  Her Hillary Care flopped big time, she was embroiled in multiple scandals and we even got to watch her husband get impeached. Then she carpetbags herself to NY to get a Senate seat only to do as her protege Obama and accomplish nothing. Oh wait, she did vote to support the Iraq invasion to the joy of the liberals.   Then we watched her failed presidential bid in 08 in which she excoriated Obama at every turn labeling him as incompetent (talk about kettle calling the pot black) only to worm herself in as Secretary of State, a job in which she failed miserably and accelerated the destabilation of the Middle East. Not to mention sacrificing American lives to protect her political agenda.

 And she has made history, not by being the first woman to gain her parties nomination for president, but for being under investigation for criminal conduct while running for the office of president. Now that is quite the achievement.

 

If your opinion is that all gun laws are unconstitutional, that is fine. But the courts have not agreed with you for centuries.

There you go again!  Can you document your assertions?

Remember, there is a difference between making laws about the way people are allowed to use guns and the fact that they are allowed own them.  Committing murder with a gun is legitimately illegal.  I would even go so far as to say that someone that has committed a crime with a gun shouldn't be allowed to own one.  But "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is (as Democrats love to say) "SETTLED" and "The law of the land".

Don't forget that President Reagan was loudly critized by liberals for cutting spending... except the "cuts" were smaller increases than the liberals were demanding.

I remember all of the news propaganda about the "homeless" supposedly due to Reagan policies.

Funny how we haven't seen any under 8 years of the Obama Malaise.

Of course.  And the media joyfully joins in with the talking points.

However, a lot of Americans are tiring of the charades and seeing through this.

I think you are giving "a lot of Americans" too much credit, unfortunately.

How come no one is bemoaning the fact that the opposition party is running a soon-to-be felon, who spent her entire life failing at every political job she managed to get?

An awful lot of faithful, adoring, democrats are quite happy with this type of answer.

In the field of risk avoidance, you consider the probability of a situation in relation to the severity of that situation.

So take a situation:
Appointing liberal supreme court justices?
Attacking the 2nd A (and the 1st andothers)?
Raising taxes?
Appointing liberal heads of the various agencies (IRS, EPA, DOJ . ..)
  or any other position that is important to you.

What are the odds that Hillary will do the wrong thing?  (I submit 100%)
What are the odds that Trump will do the wrong thing?  (I submit, Less than 100%).

Where is the confusion coming from?  I think it is all just emotional, but I always thought that was a liberal trait.

#NeverHillary   

Exactly, and well said.