The GREATEST President in history acquitted...

[Yggdrasill]

Originally Posted by Reason10

Some of the so called "conservatives" that come on here are an embarrassment to those of us who actually are old school conservatives. These newer conservatives don't care about politics or the political process, they are just mentally unstable, hate mongering projectionists.

So far, you WOKE, CANCEL CULTURE hacks have shown more hate, more mental instability and more stupidity than I thought possible. You are basically a cyber KKK rally, complete with burning cross.


Their brains don't seem to be able to reconcile the term "compromise". They have more in common with those "entitled millennials" that they hate than they do with any true conservative political bent

Mainstream conservatives (who make up about 80 percent of America) are what make this country work, while the rest of you suck up our tax dollars in welfare checks. You do not even understand modern day conservatism. You only know Sgt. Schultz style goose stepping.


I also believe it afflicts the edges of both parties, which is why Congress doesn't get much accomplished.

Congress doesn't want to accomplish anything. It just wants to maintain the status quo and get rich off the lobbyists.


Herman Hesse was quite correct:

“If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.”


I would suggest that perhaps you hate the intelligent part of yourself but that would assume such a part exists in the first place. Basically, what I'm seeing here is a bunch of entitled spoiled babies, who are not used to being disagreed with.

Rather than bring fresh ideas, maybe I should have brought this.

I haven't called you any names or vilified you in any way. But I agree with you that it happens too much on this listserv, and it is largely directed at the few Trump supporters who participate here. It never furthers the conversation.

Do you have any data to corroborate your assertion that 80% of Americans are mainstream conservative? And also, please define mainstream conservative.

[Reason10]

I haven't called you any names or vilified you in any way. But I agree with you that it happens too much on this listserv, and it is largely directed at the few Trump supporters who participate here. It never furthers the conversation.


One would have to go back to the KKK days of Reconstruction to see the amount of hate I see from the WokeNazis here, against the taxpayers, (better known as Trump supporters)

Do you have any data to corroborate your assertion that 80% of Americans are mainstream conservative? And also, please define mainstream conservative.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...ust-24-liberal

Shock: US edges more 'center-right,' just 24% liberal


Definitions of mainstream conservatism?

Free market capitalism.
The rule of law.
Adherence to the Constitution, (INCLUDING the amendments that deal with discrimination on the basis of the protected classes in the 14th Amendment).
Streamlined government.
Low, affordable tax rates.
Secure borders, (see "rule of law.")
Protection of the family unit.
Freedom and liberty, balanced by personal responsibility.
A reliable and trustworthy electoral system.


Is there any politician alive today who is a perfect combination of all these traits? I maintain that no human being is perfect, and that we are all flawed. Nobody expects perfection.

Private Sector Donald Trump was an imperfect man, and Democrats LOVED him, (mostly because he bought off Democrat candidates with campaign checks just to leave him alone.) Ironically, he became the PERFECT President, as far as job performance goes, and somehow that earned the sheer hatred of the Woke left, as well as some conservatives.

(Yes, Virginia, there are conservatives who are sorely pissed that this Trump guy was able to implement in three short years the type of conservatism they had been promising for the past thirty years.)

[Yggdrasill]

Originally Posted by Reason10

I haven't called you any names or vilified you in any way. But I agree with you that it happens too much on this listserv, and it is largely directed at the few Trump supporters who participate here. It never furthers the conversation.


One would have to go back to the KKK days of Reconstruction to see the amount of hate I see from the WokeNazis here, against the taxpayers, (better known as Trump supporters)

Do you have any data to corroborate your assertion that 80% of Americans are mainstream conservative? And also, please define mainstream conservative.


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...ust-24-liberal

Shock: US edges more 'center-right,' just 24% liberal


Definitions of mainstream conservatism?

Free market capitalism.
The rule of law.
Adherence to the Constitution, (INCLUDING the amendments that deal with discrimination on the basis of the protected classes in the 14th Amendment).
Streamlined government.
Low, affordable tax rates.
Secure borders, (see "rule of law.")
Protection of the family unit.
Freedom and liberty, balanced by personal responsibility.
A reliable and trustworthy electoral system.


Is there any politician alive today who is a perfect combination of all these traits? I maintain that no human being is perfect, and that we are all flawed. Nobody expects perfection.

Private Sector Donald Trump was an imperfect man, and Democrats LOVED him, (mostly because he bought off Democrat candidates with campaign checks just to leave him alone.) Ironically, he became the PERFECT President, as far as job performance goes, and somehow that earned the sheer hatred of the Woke left, as well as some conservatives.

(Yes, Virginia, there are conservatives who are sorely pissed that this Trump guy was able to implement in three short years the type of conservatism they had been promising for the past thirty years.)

On name calling; you do it plenty. Maybe walk the talk a bit better?

On 80% of the country being mainstream conservatives: the Gallup poll referenced in the article states that 37% Americans self-identify as conservatives; how do you get 80% from that? Also, it's worth noting that there are no definitions of conservative in the poll, so whether they conform to your definition cannot be stated.

I like your list of conservative values, though it's pretty simplistic. But I'm not criticizing because, to be fair, I asked a large, open-ended question.

I can say with certainty that many non-conservatives would agree with some of these, and possibly with most, depending on the details. For example, adherence to the rule of law, adherence to the Constitution (basically the same things), a trustworthy election system, freedom balanced with personal responsibility, streamline government, secure borders. I like free market capitalism so long as its excesses are checked. Unfettered capitalism leads to disaster, every time. I have no idea what you mean by protection of the family unit.

[Reason10]

On name calling; you do it plenty. Maybe walk the talk a bit better?

When I first got here, the retards responded to every opinion I had with the word "TROLL." That was their label for anything they didn't want to hear. All I'm doing is giving them back what they are shoveling. They obviously are not used to that in this safe space. Maybe it'll make them grow up and learn how to think and debate. Right now, they are a bunch of children.

On 80% of the country being mainstream conservatives: the Gallup poll referenced in the article states that 37% Americans self-identify as conservatives; how do you get 80% from that? Also, it's worth noting that there are no definitions of conservative in the poll, so whether they conform to your definition cannot be stated.

Gallup, (and other polls) mostly call Democrats.

I like your list of conservative values, though it's pretty simplistic. But I'm not criticizing because, to be fair, I asked a large, open-ended question.


Simplistic probably because the education level in this place isn't exactly Rhodes Scholar tiers. A long time ago when I briefly taught Business English at a community college in Orlando, I told my students they had to find ways to use as few words as possible to get their message across. Long winded certainly doesn't work here, especially with the massive amount of windbags you have.


I can say with certainty that many non-conservatives would agree with some of these, and possibly with most, depending on the details.

That is a joke. Woke Liberals wipe their asses on the rule of law. They look at "Free market" anything like a turd in the swimming pool. They look at secure borders as racist.


For example, adherence to the rule of law, adherence to the Constitution (basically the same things), a trustworthy election system, freedom balanced with personal responsibility, streamline government, secure borders. I like free market capitalism so long as its excesses are checked.

Like I said, Woke Liberals wipe their asses on the Constitution. Personal Responsibility, to a Woke? Might as well call a nun a whore.


Unfettered capitalism leads to disaster, every time.

In history, there has NEVER been a case of unfettered capitalism. It has absolutely never been tried. Government involvement in capitalism always leads to disaster and that has always been a constant in history.


I have no idea what you mean by protection of the family unit.

The nuclear family unit of husband (male) and wife (female) to take care of and raise children is the ONLY reason the human race hasn't gone totally extinct over the centuries.

(The book Men and Marriage by George Gilder is an excellent source of information, in case the concept of FAMILY is alien to you. Also, you might want to research individual state Family Law statutes, all of which were carefully crafted by state legislatures to preserve the nuclear family. Just because ignorant uneducated Woke Libs hate the idea of a regular family doesn't diminish it's monumental importance over the history of mankind.)

It has been under attack from liberalism probably since the mid-Sixties with the Great Society welfare plantation. Welfare has destroyed families, created a permanent underclass of dependents and accounts for most of the crime in the large cities.

[Yggdrasill]

Originally Posted by Reason10

On name calling; you do it plenty. Maybe walk the talk a bit better?

When I first got here, the retards responded to every opinion I had with the word "TROLL." That was their label for anything they didn't want to hear. All I'm doing is giving them back what they are shoveling. They obviously are not used to that in this safe space. Maybe it'll make them grow up and learn how to think and debate. Right now, they are a bunch of children.

On 80% of the country being mainstream conservatives: the Gallup poll referenced in the article states that 37% Americans self-identify as conservatives; how do you get 80% from that? Also, it's worth noting that there are no definitions of conservative in the poll, so whether they conform to your definition cannot be stated.

Gallup, (and other polls) mostly call Democrats.

I like your list of conservative values, though it's pretty simplistic. But I'm not criticizing because, to be fair, I asked a large, open-ended question.


Simplistic probably because the education level in this place isn't exactly Rhodes Scholar tiers. A long time ago when I briefly taught Business English at a community college in Orlando, I told my students they had to find ways to use as few words as possible to get their message across. Long winded certainly doesn't work here, especially with the massive amount of windbags you have.


I can say with certainty that many non-conservatives would agree with some of these, and possibly with most, depending on the details.

That is a joke. Woke Liberals wipe their asses on the rule of law. They look at "Free market" anything like a turd in the swimming pool. They look at secure borders as racist.


For example, adherence to the rule of law, adherence to the Constitution (basically the same things), a trustworthy election system, freedom balanced with personal responsibility, streamline government, secure borders. I like free market capitalism so long as its excesses are checked.

Like I said, Woke Liberals wipe their asses on the Constitution. Personal Responsibility, to a Woke? Might as well call a nun a whore.


Unfettered capitalism leads to disaster, every time.

In history, there has NEVER been a case of unfettered capitalism. It has absolutely never been tried. Government involvement in capitalism always leads to disaster and that has always been a constant in history.


I have no idea what you mean by protection of the family unit.

The nuclear family unit of husband (male) and wife (female) to take care of and raise children is the ONLY reason the human race hasn't gone totally extinct over the centuries.

(The book Men and Marriage by George Gilder is an excellent source of information, in case the concept of FAMILY is alien to you. Also, you might want to research individual state Family Law statutes, all of which were carefully crafted by state legislatures to preserve the nuclear family. Just because ignorant uneducated Woke Libs hate the idea of a regular family doesn't diminish it's monumental importance over the history of mankind.)

It has been under attack from liberalism probably since the mid-Sixties with the Great Society welfare plantation. Welfare has destroyed families, created a permanent underclass of dependents and accounts for most of the crime in the large cities.

I will respond to some of the specific issues individually but for now a general comment. I find it fascinating and puzzling that I am writing to you, Reason10, talking about your thoughts and opinions, but you are responding to some nebulous group of people you don't like. That's weird, and frankly dehumanizing and insulting. It comes across as a passive-aggressive way of trying to tell me what I think. How can I have a discourse with someone who doesn't acknowledge what I am telling them that I believe, but insists on ascribing to me some set of opinions held by others?

I can only share my experiences and thoughts in good faith. If you don't think I am acting in good faith, muster the balls to say so. I mean, why even engage at all if you think that?

[Reason10]

I will respond to some of the specific issues individually but for now a general comment. I find it fascinating and puzzling that I am writing to you, Reason10, talking about your thoughts and opinions, but you are responding to some nebulous group of people you don't like.

Perhaps you should ask this "nebulous" group of retards why, when I first arrived, referred to me as a TROLL. Kinda hard to like someone who first the first insults.


That's weird, and frankly dehumanizing and insulting.

But calling me a troll merely for having conservative opinions isn't weird, dehumanizing and insulting. Got it.


It comes across as a passive-aggressive way of trying to tell me what I think. How can I have a discourse with someone who doesn't acknowledge what I am telling them that I believe, but insists on ascribing to me some set of opinions held by others?


I didn't call you a troll. Your selective moral outrage has a glitch in the aiming scope.

I can only share my experiences and thoughts in good faith. If you don't think I am acting in good faith, muster the balls to say so. I mean, why even engage at all if you think that?


All I've done here is post my views in good faith. And pretty much all I've gotten is insult after insult, from the Goose Steppers and Cross Burners here. I'm fair with people. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt. If they want to be brats, they are going to be treated like brats, simple as that.


As you may have accidentally discovered, I'm pretty capable of discussing issues without it getting personal. As soon as some of the Hitler Youth here grow a brain and douse the fire on their crosses, perhaps their small minds could stand a little challenging.

[Yggdrasill]

Originally Posted by Reason10

I will respond to some of the specific issues individually but for now a general comment. I find it fascinating and puzzling that I am writing to you, Reason10, talking about your thoughts and opinions, but you are responding to some nebulous group of people you don't like.

Perhaps you should ask this "nebulous" group of retards why, when I first arrived, referred to me as a TROLL. Kinda hard to like someone who first the first insults.
[COLOR="blue"]

You continue to do it. I don't need to ask anyone else anything. I am responsible for what I write, and that's it. What do they have to do with me?

Originally Posted by Reason10

That's weird, and frankly dehumanizing and insulting.

But calling me a troll merely for having conservative opinions isn't weird, dehumanizing and insulting. Got it.

I did not say that, so again don't put words in my mouth. And stop deflecting. The way you continue to ignore what I am saying while responding to me is weird.

Originally Posted by Reason10

It comes across as a passive-aggressive way of trying to tell me what I think. How can I have a discourse with someone who doesn't acknowledge what I am telling them that I believe, but insists on ascribing to me some set of opinions held by others?

I didn't call you a troll. Your selective moral outrage has a glitch in the aiming scope.

Same as previous answer.

Originally Posted by Reason10

I can only share my experiences and thoughts in good faith. If you don't think I am acting in good faith, muster the balls to say so. I mean, why even engage at all if you think that?

All I've done here is post my views in good faith. And pretty much all I've gotten is insult after insult, from the Goose Steppers and Cross Burners here. I'm fair with people. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt. If they want to be brats, they are going to be treated like brats, simple as that.
As you may have accidentally discovered, I'm pretty capable of discussing issues without it getting personal. As soon as some of the Hitler Youth here grow a brain and douse the fire on their crosses, perhaps their small minds could stand a little challenging.

I empathize. I participate in another forum, where the overwhelming majority share your political opinions, and it is one long bash fest, of dismissive one-liners, insults, and so on directed at me while I have remained civil. I have mostly given up there, not because of the behavior but simply because none of them are interested in what I have to say. It's a waste of time.

However, I don't think I've seen one epithet-free post from you. So no, I have not yet seen you discuss issues without getting personal.

[UncleAng]

Originally Posted by Reason10

But calling me a troll merely for having conservative opinions isn't weird, dehumanizing and insulting. Got it. .

I don't know exactly what you are but you strike me as being more jihadist than conservative.

[Yggdrasill]

Originally Posted by Reason10

On 80% of the country being mainstream conservatives: the Gallup poll referenced in the article states that 37% Americans self-identify as conservatives; how do you get 80% from that? Also, it's worth noting that there are no definitions of conservative in the poll, so whether they conform to your definition cannot be stated.

Gallup, (and other polls) mostly call Democrats.

I don't know that that's true, and neither I suspect do you since you provided no evidence. Gallup wouldn't be very useful as a polling service if it had a persistent bias. In any case, if that's true, why reference an article that cites a Gallup poll for its conclusion? You decided instead simply to "adjust' the number from 37% to 80%? Was there a mathematical formula you used, as a math teacher? I have seen you in others posts, here and on other sites, claim that 80% of the electorate is conservative. Why don't you just admit that you're wrong and move on, given the mountains of evidence against your assertion? Or did that 80% elect Obama in 2012?

Originally Posted by Reason10

I like your list of conservative values, though it's pretty simplistic. But I'm not criticizing because, to be fair, I asked a large, open-ended question.


Simplistic probably because the education level in this place isn't exactly Rhodes Scholar tiers. A long time ago when I briefly taught Business English at a community college in Orlando, I told my students they had to find ways to use as few words as possible to get their message across. Long winded certainly doesn't work here, especially with the massive amount of windbags you have.

Windbags that "I" have? Not my site, not my windbags.

Originally Posted by Reason10

I can say with certainty that many non-conservatives would agree with some of these, and possibly with most, depending on the details.

That is a joke. Woke Liberals wipe their asses on the rule of law. They look at "Free market" anything like a turd in the swimming pool. They look at secure borders as racist.

No joke. I am serious. My conclusion is based on many conversations and much reading. And despite your fervent desire to frame the world this way, liberals, conservatives, progressives, evangelical voters, and independents are not homogenous groups. Divergent views exist within each group; to claim otherwise is just convenient over-simplification to create an aura of credibility for your argument.

I wouldn't describe myself as a "woke liberal" but I am no Trump supporter and am extremely devoted to the rule of law. It's a big reason I find the Republican Party (though not all Republicans obviously), and former President Trump to be so cringeworthy: their absolute disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution.

Secure borders are incredibly important. Calling Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers, and punishing dark skinned people for being poor and desperate on the other, is racist.

Originally Posted by Reason10

For example, adherence to the rule of law, adherence to the Constitution (basically the same things), a trustworthy election system, freedom balanced with personal responsibility, streamline government, secure borders. I like free market capitalism so long as its excesses are checked.

Like I said, Woke Liberals wipe their asses on the Constitution. Personal Responsibility, to a Woke? Might as well call a nun a whore.

Is this your backhanded way of calling me personally irresponsible? And you know this because you know so much about me?

Originally Posted by Reason10

Unfettered capitalism leads to disaster, every time.

In history, there has NEVER been a case of unfettered capitalism. It has absolutely never been tried. Government involvement in capitalism always leads to disaster and that has always been a constant in history.

I should have used more careful wording; how about, "insufficiently and/or ineptly fettered capitalism leads to excesses and disastrous consequences, every time." This is because capitalism contains a built-in paradox, one that Adam Smith well understood. On the one hand, society benefits from harnessing the efficiency, productivity and innovation that comes from competition and the freedom of market actors to sort out the best solutions to problems. On the other hand, the ultimate goal of any market actor is dominate their market space, resulting in inefficient and socially undesirable monopoly/duopoly/oligopoly.

Smith did not have the benefit of foreseeing the incredible power of large, transnational corporations, and their ability to socialize many of the costs of their activities, e.g., pollution, labor exploitation, environmental destruction. This is nowhere more true than in the (largely predatory and unproductive) financial sector. Remember who got bailed out and who lost out in 2008?

Capitalism naturally creates an expand-and-contract business cycle, which in and of itself is not a bad thing. In fact, it is unavoidable in a system that is governed by feedback loops with millions and billions of individual decision makers. However, unregulated business cycles tend to be larger, more abrupt and more disruptive to the economy as a whole and to individual households. Good regulation seeks to attenuate the peaks of that cycle, to create a moderated, less volatile ebb and flow of economic activity.

I think there is a lot of evidence to establish that private-public partnerships create the most efficient and socially beneficial outcomes. This is because the private sector and the public sector have symbiotic strengths and weaknesses.

Originally Posted by Reason10

I have no idea what you mean by protection of the family unit.

The nuclear family unit of husband (male) and wife (female) to take care of and raise children is the ONLY reason the human race hasn't gone totally extinct over the centuries.

(The book Men and Marriage by George Gilder is an excellent source of information, in case the concept of FAMILY is alien to you. Also, you might want to research individual state Family Law statutes, all of which were carefully crafted by state legislatures to preserve the nuclear family. Just because ignorant uneducated Woke Libs hate the idea of a regular family doesn't diminish it's monumental importance over the history of mankind.)

It has been under attack from liberalism probably since the mid-Sixties with the Great Society welfare plantation. Welfare has destroyed families, created a permanent underclass of dependents and accounts for most of the crime in the large cities.

First, go eff yourself with snarkastic comments like, "in case the concept of FAMILY is alien to you." Who the fuck do you think you are and whom do you think you are talking to with that kind of superior attitude? You seem to have some sociopathic need to objectify and dehumanize an interlocutor, and I will not take that kind of shit from you or anyone else. I have brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, children, nieces and nephews, and a spouse who are the most important things in my life. So not only do I understand family, apparently I also understand the concept of civility better than you do.

The nuclear family as a dominant form of social organization is an extremely recent development in human history. It certainly was not dominant through any period where humanity's survival was in doubt (except maybe the nuclear arms race, and I don't know how much impact it had on that). Larger social groupings such as extended families and especially small communities of 200-500 were historically and prehistorically far more important for survival because they offered sufficient labor and skill diversification for economic self-sufficiency and protection.

What evidence do you have that welfare has destroyed families? When it comes to black families in the United States, I would argue that massive and disproportionate incarceration of black males has done much more to destroy family cohesion.

I understand the concept of a Family Law Statute, but they seem more designed to govern the breakup of a family than to preserve it. For example, such statues typically cover things like grounds for divorce, child custody, division of property, alimony and child support. Why don't you share with me one that you think was crafted to preserve the nuclear family, and how exactly the government can keep together spouses who don't want to be together?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Yggdrasill

I don't know that that's true, and neither I suspect do you since you provided no evidence. Gallup wouldn't be very useful as a polling service if it had a persistent bias. In any case, if that's true, why reference an article that cites a Gallup poll for its conclusion? You decided instead simply to "adjust' the number from 37% to 80%? Was there a mathematical formula you used, as a math teacher? I have seen you in others posts, here and on other sites, claim that 80% of the electorate is conservative. Why don't you just admit that you're wrong and move on, given the mountains of evidence against your assertion? Or did that 80% elect Obama in 2012?



Windbags that "I" have? Not my site, not my windbags.



No joke. I am serious. My conclusion is based on many conversations and much reading. And despite your fervent desire to frame the world this way, liberals, conservatives, progressives, evangelical voters, and independents are not homogenous groups. Divergent views exist within each group; to claim otherwise is just convenient over-simplification to create an aura of credibility for your argument.

I wouldn't describe myself as a "woke liberal" but I am no Trump supporter and am extremely devoted to the rule of law. It's a big reason I find the Republican Party (though not all Republicans obviously), and former President Trump to be so cringeworthy: their absolute disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution.

Secure borders are incredibly important. Calling Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers, and punishing dark skinned people for being poor and desperate on the other, is racist.



Is this your backhanded way of calling me personally irresponsible? And you know this because you know so much about me?



I should have used more careful wording; how about, "insufficiently and/or ineptly fettered capitalism leads to excesses and disastrous consequences, every time." This is because capitalism contains a built-in paradox, one that Adam Smith well understood. On the one hand, society benefits from harnessing the efficiency, productivity and innovation that comes from competition and the freedom of market actors to sort out the best solutions to problems. On the other hand, the ultimate goal of any market actor is dominate their market space, resulting in inefficient and socially undesirable monopoly/duopoly/oligopoly.

Smith did not have the benefit of foreseeing the incredible power of large, transnational corporations, and their ability to socialize many of the costs of their activities, e.g., pollution, labor exploitation, environmental destruction. This is nowhere more true than in the (largely predatory and unproductive) financial sector. Remember who got bailed out and who lost out in 2008?

Capitalism naturally creates an expand-and-contract business cycle, which in and of itself is not a bad thing. In fact, it is unavoidable in a system that is governed by feedback loops with millions and billions of individual decision makers. However, unregulated business cycles tend to be larger, more abrupt and more disruptive to the economy as a whole and to individual households. Good regulation seeks to attenuate the peaks of that cycle, to create a moderated, less volatile ebb and flow of economic activity.

I think there is a lot of evidence to establish that private-public partnerships create the most efficient and socially beneficial outcomes. This is because the private sector and the public sector have symbiotic strengths and weaknesses.



First, go eff yourself with snarkastic comments like, "in case the concept of FAMILY is alien to you." Who the fuck do you think you are and whom do you think you are talking to with that kind of superior attitude? You seem to have some sociopathic need to objectify and dehumanize an interlocutor, and I will not take that kind of shit from you or anyone else. I have brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, children, nieces and nephews, and a spouse who are the most important things in my life. So not only do I understand family, apparently I also understand the concept of civility better than you do.

The nuclear family as a dominant form of social organization is an extremely recent development in human history. It certainly was not dominant through any period where humanity's survival was in doubt (except maybe the nuclear arms race, and I don't know how much impact it had on that). Larger social groupings such as extended families and especially small communities of 200-500 were historically and prehistorically far more important for survival because they offered sufficient labor and skill diversification for economic self-sufficiency and protection.

What evidence do you have that welfare has destroyed families? When it comes to black families in the United States, I would argue that massive and disproportionate incarceration of black males has done much more to destroy family cohesion.

I understand the concept of a Family Law Statute, but they seem more designed to govern the breakup of a family than to preserve it. For example, such statues typically cover things like grounds for divorce, child custody, division of property, alimony and child support. Why don't you share with me one that you think was crafted to preserve the nuclear family, and how exactly the government can keep together spouses who don't want to be together?

Congratulations, you have just completed a tour of the sadly simplistic and deluded mind of a Trumper. I sincerely hope none of your braincells and functions were damaged during the journey.