The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.
The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com


I live in WV, I was born and raised in the Army, I have lived all over the country growing up, I work in the nuclear industry, working them during shut-downs, with this as well I have worked all over the country.

What is important to me? God, Family, and Country. Some would say this makes be a backward, tobacco chewing, redneck. That’s alright, I’ve been called worse. In the present atmosphere I think what we should be focused on, as far as the political level of things is Freedom, which comes from smaller government, a return to the constitution, and dose of the government staying out of our lives.

As to the topic at hand, Donald Trump, I like what he has to say about the border, our economy, our military, handling ISIS, and much more. With that I have to say… what?

He has changed party affiliation 4 or 5 times, most say to curry government favor. As a businessman, he admits he has bribed politicians to get things done, which shows a real lack of ethics. In other words he is used to telling people what they want to hear in order to achieve his goal.

Will he do what he says he’s going to do once he gets in office? Is he genuine in anything he says? Will he continue the socialist agenda that is already in place?

My opinion is this: If we elect him as president, he could turn this country around, if he does what he says he’s going to do. If he turns out to be a liberal and he drives the final nail into this country, we will look like the biggest fools that ever lived.

September 21, 2015

Profile photo of Daniel Ramirez
Daniel Ramirez @cadillacramirez


Thank you for that. I appreciate your family and their involvement in the Army. I have a lot of respect for Army guys. They produce some very intelligent Generals and the enlisted and officer ranks do some serious deployment time. I will be the first to admit that I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t spend 9 months to a year at a time away from my little girl.

Also what is very interesting to me is that you work in the Nuclear industry. I wish I knew more about nuclear physics and all that stuff. So I’m sure I have an idea about how you feel about the Iran Nuclear deal. What i’d like to know is do you think Iran can easily cheat and hide their activities of trying to weaponize a nuclear warhead?

September 22, 2015

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com


Daniel, without a doubt. Iran not only can hide their activities, but will do so. They hate anyone who is not a muslim and they especially hate America. While John Kerry was negotiating the deal, Iranians could be heard outside the building screaming, “Death to Americans” over and over again. The sad part is Kerry laughed it off like it was nothing.

We are helping a country who hates us to have nuclear capability and our politicians are too ignorant to realize it will be a disaster. My only other conclusion is that obozo is purposely setting us up.

Will they hide what they are doing? Yes. Will they bomb us if they get the chance? Yes. It is a no win situation.

September 22, 2015

Profile photo of Two Cents
Two Cents @twocents

@jlriggs57aol-com I completely agree with @cadillacramirez about your background in Nuclear physics. I would love if you got a topic going on that subject. I think it’s a great time to discus that considering the Iran Nuclear Deal and everything that is going on with that.

Going back to the original topic of Trump.

Question 1: I haven’t had a chance to listen to the interview. When I have a chance to listen to it I will respond with my answer.

2: His remarks on Carly Fiorina’s face were stupid. He can definitely sometimes be VERY immature. However, it doesn’t really bother me that much. I think his mouth is a little irrational and unpredictable. But obviously he’s done fine in his business career. His mouth was there with him the whole time he was earning that 9 Billion, so it can’t be that big of an issue. I did however, think Carly Fiorina handled it very well, and I think she showed a lot class and wit. I think she gained some points that night and made him look like a complete idiot at the debate.

3. I didn’t even notice his back and forth with Ben Carson. As far as I can see those two have a pretty friendly relationship. They’ve even used a few of the same talking points. I think Carson is probably one of Trumps top picks for VP.

Since Riggs talked about whats important to him, I’ll talk about whats important to me.

My top priority right now, can be summed up two words: Efficient and effective.

I want our government to be efficient and effective. I feel that all of this talk over closing this government agency or defunding that government agency is just stupid. A lot of the agencies we have serve a great purpose, they just also serve a lot of completely pointless purposes as well. I want someone who is going to get in there, appoint smart people, that will make our agencies effective and efficient. As a nation, I believe the general public has a pretty good idea of what matters to us and what we think is important. The sad thing is we talk all the time about the things the agencies should be doing, and arguing, rather than talk about all the stupid things these agencies do that we really don’t need.

Like for example:

Last year the government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to study the effects of swedish massages on rabbits. What is the point of that? Seriously?? BYE. We don’t need to know the answer to that question. It was around $300,000 dollars just thrown down the drain.

The National Science Foundation spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts. POINTLESS. Nobody cares, and nobody should care.

Look how stupid this one is: “Waste Watch” notes that the U.S. government paid an Afghan construction firm nearly $500,000 in 2012 to build an Afghan police training center that began to disintegrate in the rain four months after the project was finished. U.S., authorities found that the bricks were made mostly of sand, with little clay to prevent them from turning to mud when wet.

“Waste Watch” also reported on a nonprofit contractor billing the U.S. Agency for International Development $1.1 million for staff parties and retreats at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

There are thousands of examples like this. We need someone with a business mind, that is going to appoint people with business minds, to go in and just start cutting things that are completely pointless. The amount of money we can save by cutting these stupid expenses will be shocking. Then we can actually have a big kid conservation about the spending were doing for programs that people are willing to lay down their lives for.

I don’t know who the candidate is that is going to do this. Maybe it’s Trump, maybe its fiorina, maybe its Cruz. I have no idea. But it certainly isn’t Hilary, Sanders, Rubio, Bush, or Huckabee. I know that for sure.

We need someone new, to come in and shake things up in Washington. Sorry, but kid times over. All of these politicians that haven’t done ANYTHING for us, on either side, need to go. BYE.

September 26, 2015

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar


My background, though I don’t really know why this is important to the question: Spent 22 years in uniform as part of the Constitutionally required demand of the United States Government to first and foremost secure our rights and freedoms.

Since medical/disability retirement due to a Line of Duty injury in Iraq, I spend my time in continuance of that same mission by trying to help my fellow voters make informed decisions at the voting booth. There is more than one way to honor the oath to preserve and defend…

My general opinion of Trump is not good. I do like some of the things he says and the fact that he does not let political correctness get in his way but that can and likely will hurt him as well, and sadly us too.

The attack on Carley Fiornia’s face is a perfect example. It does not concern me that he either likes or dislikes Fiorina or her face. However his statement is very telling. What is telling is that he is capable of making such a statement without thinking first.

To illustrate – what happens when President Trump is in Japan at a G-8 summit and he doesn’t like the suit the leader of Japan is wearing or the lame joke he tells or something just as irrelevant? What if at that point Trump blurts out a statement like the one he used in the attack on Fiorina? Fiorina handled it well but I guarantee you that the leader of Japan and all other G-8 countries will not be as “accommodating” as Fiorina was when she was attacked.

These other seven leaders will probably leave the room. Then what? We participate in the G-8 summit (and others) in order to represent the United States interests on the world stage. If the other leaders leave the room then Trump is the only one left. Did we win or did we lose? We lost because the world affairs can then be conducted without the presence of the United States at the next meeting. We not only lost but we lost big time and this could be even more damaging to the image of the United States than the damage caused by Obama.

What else, in general terms?

It has been established that Trump has bought politicians. Can Trump be bought? Yes he can. By whom? Himself, that’s who. He doesn’t need to be given money directly to be bought. Trump can be counted on to do what is in Trump’s best interest. Generally what is in Trump’s best interest will often be in the best interest of the United States (a good thing).

What happens when what is in Trump’s best interest is NOT in the best interest of the United States? What happens when the decision benefits the real estate industry (of which Trump Industries is part) but goes against the long term goals of the United States? Food for thought

One specific example: Trump was recently interview by a prominent interviewer and it went down something like this. The interviewer said “Mr. Trump I am going to ask you a very specific question and I want a very specific answer.” Anyone will understand that to mean pay very close attention to the wording of the question because the WORDING of the question is very important (this precludes and notion of a trap being set).

The scenario was presented: you have an illegal alien couple residing in Los Angles, that couple has two children who were born in the United States and as such are United States citizens. Mr. Trump, what would you do? Trump said that he would deport all of them.

Just to re-visit the fact that the question was very specific, the interviewer stated (with emphasis) no less than four times that these children were United States citizens in an effort to be VERY clear and specifically NOT set a trap. Trumps answer was to deport them all.

As indicated above I served 22 years to secure the rights of ALL Americans. Clearly the parents in this scenario are NOT Americans (U.S. citizens) but clearly the two children are U.S. citizens.

1) You cannot abduct, transfer, detain, and ultimately deport United States citizens without “due process” and he offered none of that, not even the required mention of their rights.

2) In order to deport these two children to another country (one to which they have no official ties, which precludes the notion of deportation in the first place) you MUST first revoke that U.S. citizenship. There is not a court in the land that would do that without first examining the heinous crime of which they have been convicted (due process) in a court of law. It cannot legally be done. It isn’t just that this action by Trump would violate United States code (public law) but it would violate the Constitution itself.

My opinion: sorry but I took an oath to defend the Constitution (because it guarantees our rights and freedoms) and I served officially 22+ years in uniform, and that is 22 years and one sworn oath too many to allow this to happen. I have been watching patiently for him to retract and clarify this and it has not happened.

As for the three non-politician candidates I respectfully acknowledge that Carson is probably the most intelligent person running but intelligence by itself doesn’t cut it. Carson has nearly no qualifications to be president (though I would say he is more qualified than Obama).

That leaves Trump and Fiorina. Notwithstanding the above (which is a show-stopper by itself) these two are similar yet different.

Both ran major corporations and were successful (both had failures also). So both have leadership skills and both have experience in economics and large amounts of money. One difference that needs to be taken into consideration is that when Trump made a command decision he was making that decision regarding mostly, if not all, his own money. Fiorina made essentially the same decisions but when she had to decide she made her decision not based on her own money but on the money of others (shareholders). Presidents make decisions in the best interest not of themselves but of others.

For clarity I know that HP has been a publicly traded corporation for many years but I can only imaging that even if Trump Industries or his other companies are public it is Trump who is a major (and probably majority) shareholder.

The president makes decisions, recommendations for some 300+ million Americans. Don Trump made decisions for considerably fewer and arguably very few (possible one) individuals.

Don’t get me wrong, as a one-time business owner I can say that there is not much better than (and a better exercise of your freedoms) owning your own business. We should be proud that Trump is so successful because that is a true American quality.

Some say that successful business owners are “greedy.” I strongly disagree with that but what the hell, let me jump on the bandwagon for a minute and say that they should be even more greedy (yes, I said more, noting that it is shameful that the American public doesn’t understand this). The question is do we want this quality (that of business “greed”) to find its way to the White House?

Please ask yourself if Trump, or any candidate for that matter, is capable of carrying out the promises he makes in order to get elected. Obama made a bunch of promises in order to get elected and it worked. Although most of these promises were abandoned when he was elected, it worked because the voting public were too uninformed to be able to reasonably determine if Obama could live up to those promises.

One example of that mentioned in the previous paragraph. Trump says that he will deport ALL illegals. He also said he would deport those two United States citizen children discussed above. You need to know two things in order to make an informed decision on this:

1) Can Trump deport United States citizens? Not only no, but hell no! It matters not how good this might sound to voters, it cannot happen.

2) Can Trump deport all illegal aliens from this country? Yes, legally he can do this, but can he do this as a matter of practically? Probably not, the logistics are far to complicated and costly to be supported (how many billions or even trillions are we willing to spend to get them all out, especially when he admits that he will allow the “good” ones back into this country an expeditious manner). For one thing we would probably have to hire an extra million or more cops to get this done and are you willing to see your taxes go up to expand government that much?

September 29, 2015

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com


Kev, as is usual, I agree with a lot of what you say.

As, I too, have said in the past, Trumps mouth can be his own worst enemy and your right it probably will cost him the election.

When it comes to the illegals, I feel we should get rid of the anchor baby law and retro it to the 80’s right after the last amnesty was given. It is a horrible law that should never been put in place to start with.

After that is accomplished, give all illegals 3 months notice so they have the opportunity to vacate on their own, then start sending them out, along with their kids and any grand kids.

It was done before. We could do it again. There would be a large number at first, then it would just be a matter of time until we find the rest who are hiding. To aid in this we should put heavy fines on businesses that hire those who are illegal.

I don’t know how this is all going to go as far as who is the best man for the office, I have my picks the same as everyone else, but I do know that this country is very brittle from the things our current administration has done and all it will take is just a little more pressure in the right place and the whole thing will shatter to the point I don’t think it could be put back together. I truly think that we could lose it all if the wrong person gets in there.

Good to hear from you again, don’t be a stranger. Have a great day.

September 29, 2015

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar



I agree that we need to do away with the anchor baby law. Actually a person can make a good case that the meaning of the 14th amendment is NOT to allow for anchor babies. For the past though it really doesn’t matter (but it does for the future).

It doesn’t matter for the past because regardless of the reason for doing so, a competent legal authority gave them that United States citizenship.

Warning: the use of the term “competent” legal authority in the above sentence DOES NOT mean a “proficient” legal authority. It simply meant that the organization, Congress, that gave those anchor babies their U.S. citizenship had the proper authority to issue citizenship (they make the laws). They may have done it for a wrong reason, which I believe they did, but nevertheless they had proper authority.

What this means is that those children received citizenship from an entity that had authority to grant citizenship; as opposed to an entity such as DOT which never has that authority. As such it would REQUIRE the revocation of that citizenship prior to any deportation. It takes a court of law to revoke citizenship, not an outspoken presidential candidate.

It may have been a bad decision to issue U.S. citizenship to those children of illegal alien parents (I agree that it was a mistake) but we did it. Since it was done, and the children in that scenario had committed no crime or wrongdoing, just taking that citizenship from them is plain and simple a denial of due process and a violation of numerous clauses of the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Anyone who can seriously suggest doing that (which Trump clearly has done) is in my mind against the United States Constitution, and that has very serious consequences.

I wore the uniform too many years to just casually let this go. On the other hand I have watched and listened carefully in hopes that Trump would retract and clarify that very issue. He has so little concern for our rights and freedoms that he has not even tried to do so.

As for getting rid of the anchor baby thing I believe that is a great idea. As for making that retro to the 1980’s that is known as an “Ex Post Facto” law and those are strictly forbidden by the United States Constitution (Article One, Section 9, clause 3, states “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed”).

Clarify the law going forward but you cannot retro-actively change the law. Those children in the example ARE IN FACT United States citizens and due all the protections of that status. They are U.S. citizens as legally as you and me and if Trump can deport them then he can deport you and me. I will not stand for that.

As for giving them 3 months to vacate on their own, I agree. However you do know that Romney was laughed out of Washington for the same idea.

As for assessing heavy fines on businesses who employ them you are suggesting that we make it illegal to hire illegals. That is already illegal but I get your point of increasing the fines. The problem is that if we don’t enforce the law now why would we enforce the same law later. Reagan (and by extension our nation) was burned big time for believing this as pertains to illegal immigration.

I have my favorites just as does everyone else and those are subject to change before the election. It is too early to “rule” one candidate in, but it is not too early to “rule” a candidate out. That said when I do “rule” someone out it is for the sum total of their position, not a single action. It is indeed rare that I will “rule” out a candidate for a single action or statement but both Trump and Carson have made it into that category already. Fiorina has not even come close to that.

Trump, for the reasons stated in this and my last post. His anti-American rhetoric just on this topic is too much for me and violates an oath I swore years ago.

I dismissed Carson on a single event when he said he would not have gone to war with the Taliban (and al Qaeda) in Afghanistan after 9/11. We did the requisite negotiating and made sure they knew that we wanted (and would not settle for less) bin Laden and all other terrorists in their control or their country who had anything to do with 9/11. We negotiated, they refused negotiation. What else was there to do? We couldn’t have let that go.

The president of the United States has but one job (a very significant job at that) and that is to secure our rights and freedoms at all cost. He swears an oath to do this. It is and was his duty to act in whatever manner required to defend this nation.

People can argue all day long about the tactics used as some were good and some were less than good but you can’t argue that it was not his job to defend the United States. George Bush did the right thing taking this country to war after 9/11 and nearly 100% of Congress and the American people supported him. Iraq is a different story although the war in Iraq was completely legal from a number of angles, the question is was it wise to go into Iraq at that particular time and that is a topic for good robust debate.

To not take the nation to war after 9/11 and the failed negotiations would have clearly been the biggest mistake of his presidency and of his life. The Monday-morning quarterbacks of the Liberal wing of the Democrat Party are too stupid to know this. Apparently so is Ben Carson.

Ben Carson, by his own admission, would not have gone to war after 9/11. For that anti-American statement I will hold the door for him as he exits the room and I will lock that door behind him. This country has no room for that kind of anti-American sentiment.

September 29, 2015

Profile photo of Daniel Ramirez
Daniel Ramirez @cadillacramirez


Kevlar, it was relevant to me to hear the background of the individuals involved in this debate because personally I think that social media has taken away the personal side of communication with others. People just log on to a website and then bang away at their keyboard in response to some screen name and comment that they see on their computer screens. I like to have an idea and a little knowledge about who I am talking to so that I can better understand their point of view and opinions on matters. Because at the end of the day, I’m most likely not going to agree with everything that someone says but I can better respect their opinion when I understand that their opinion is apart of who they are and where they came from.

I appreciate your input on this issue and thank you for your dedicated service. I would have to say that I agree with most of your views on Trump. As for Ben Carson……well lets say I don’t have that bad of an opinion on him. I mean you are definitely right that we had to go to war after 9/11 in Afghanistan (not Iraq). But I don’t necessarily think that it was anti-American sentiment on Carson’s behalf. I think that a lot of people are so exhausted from war in the middle east and all the problems it has brought that they may be quick to make those kind of statements. But first of all, it’s easy to judge those decisions after the fact. Second of all, I think more people are coming to the realization that the dynamics of globalization and technology have made it harder for the U.S. to always play big brother in the world. And lastly its pretty well known that foreign policy just really isn’t Ben Carson’s strong suit.

September 30, 2015

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar



Good point about why you asked for a short background. Makes sense and I wish I would have thought of that first – nice job.

Thanks for your well thought-out response to my Ben Carson thing. In hindsight I could have been more clear and thanks for pointing out the need for clarity.

I stated, perhaps not with clarity, that the notion that Ben Carson would not have gone to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11 was an “anti-American” statement. After reading your response to that perhaps I was at the least unclear in my words, so thanks.

For Ben Carson (if President) to not have gone to war after 9/11 isn’t probably directly an “anti-American” stance and I was probably wrong in saying it the way I did.

What I should have said, and the end result is similar although “anti-American” might be a bit strong, is that any and ALL presidents are charged first and foremost with securing our rights.

The opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence make this clear as the first and ONLY purpose for a federal government. This suggests that if there were no need for defense and a means of securing our rights and freedoms as bestowed by our Creator, then there would be no need for a federal government and we would only then have state governments.

As such I suppose I should have said that anyone who believes they are qualified (not in terms of specific qualifications like 35 years old and a natural born citizen) to be President of this nation had better know that his number one duty, if elected, is to in fact secure those rights from others who would take them away from us.

It is keenly obvious that some 3,000 innocent Americans had those rights taken from them against their will on 9/11. This in turn mandated that action be taken to ensure that never happened again. Negotiation is fine and we did that. The Taliban were having nothing to do with our efforts to negotiate. War was the ONLY answer and to not acknowledge that is to not understand the responsibilities of the federal government.

Not understanding the requirements of the federal government is not something I would hold against the, for example janitor at K-Mart, but I would hold that against a person desiring to be President/Commander-in-chief.

“Anti-American?” Perhaps not and I think I misspoke. Highly irresponsible of a presidential candidate to not know the basic purpose of the federal government for which he wants to be the leader – yes, without doubt.

Other than that I can find no reason to dislike Carson. I do think he lacks the necessary experience to be president but then we can look at the current president and easily determine that Carson has vastly more experience than Obama. Still though, not enough in my opinion.

September 30, 2015

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

In order to comment you must: