Mr. Basura thought that there should be a point by point answer to Amy Kerr Hardin's "Resolution of No Confidence." (And just for the record I’ve been known on the Internet as AuldSchool for many years and more would recognize that name than Jim Martin. I have been posting about the MHSAA football play-offs since the '80s.) Also for the record, I would not be considered a Trump supporter, much closer to a "Never Trumper" and I contributed to more than a few candidates who lost to him in the Republican primary. Months ago I came to a decision that if Trump was trailing in the polls in Michigan I would cast my vote elsewhere, but certainly not for Hillary. I felt I could make that symbolic vote as Michigan was part of the “Blue Wall" the electoral votes any Democrat would surely win. But if it looked like there was any chance for the Republicans, I would cast my vote to help. My reason was the Supreme Court. To the answers. 1 – The Donald likes Putin argument. I don’t know if you’ve noticed Mr Trump (and his mouth) sometimes rambles into uncharted territory. He sort of wanders around the point he wants to make, usually with a bit of humor to add a little bite. The point Mr. Trump was making wasn’t that he admired Putin as much as he detested the way Putin has made President Obama lame; Secretary Clinton look weak. The Clinton State Dept. left Putin much stronger. Eight years ago Russia was not a player in the Middle East, now it is again. As for pictures of Donald with Vladimir Putin – please see photos of Sec. Clinton and her Big Red Button that was going to reset the US – quasi-Soviet relations. Also see FDR, Winston Churchill and Stalin or Pres. Obama with the Castros – "individuals whose words and actions embody that which is wholly antithetical to the values of our American democratic principles, civil liberties and rule of the law, and who are known for their strongman tactics and human rights violations, including state-sponsored murder." Not Disqualifying under the Constitution. 2 – The Clinton campaign made this point their whole campaign. They still lost. There is nothing in the Constitution preventing a bad candidate from running. Trump may be the second worst candidate of all time, and Hillary (whatever happened to the Rodham? Did it not focus group well?) Clinton proved herself (again) to be the worst candidate. Would that it were, but Not Disqualifying. 3 – Trump got supporters of the 2nd Amendment to act against Hillary Clinton. And she made it easy for them to use their 1st Amendment rights to support him. 4 – So he ran against the "well established" foreign policies of Clinton/Obama. Actually laughed when I saw "prestigious international standing." That is called campaigning for change. 5 – And he still won? Wow. This is the scattershot accusation that has become so overused that the public is tired of it. Climate deniers, huh, that must be those people who deny that weather exists? Mrs. Clinton also made this charge repeatedly. Again no sale with the voters. 6 – If I take your argument as completely true it still makes him much better than Pres. Clinton with women. Hillary led the charge against moral rectitude in the White House. Would that it were disqualifying. 7 – Did George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have to sell their farms? Let me clue you in. If it is connected with the Donald the business will have TRUMP in big letters. The ultimate in transparency the Dems favorite. He won’t hide it. Remember the Lincoln bedroom rentals? And at least TRUMP will give you an overpriced tie, he won’t charge non-profits a quarter million for a speech. Not disqualifying. 8 – Again asked and answered all during the campaign. And if his health is worse than HC’s we’ll have Mike Pence who is definitely better than the Democrats’ alternatives of Clinton/Kaine. Not disqualifying. 9 - The Donald acts like a Democrat. See Sen John Edwards. Also see the president’s war powers in reference to conflict resolution. Is conflict resolution where you draw a red line and do nothing when it is crossed. I think that is irresolution. Also Not Disqualifying. 10 – The whiner’s clause. "Ma, he’s being mean." If he says something on Twitter you can answer him back. Just because you disagree with him doesn’t disqualify him. And again I was embarrassed by Bill Clinton for years. I lived. Not Disqualifying. 11 – As opposed to Sen. Harry Reid and friends who introduced a bill to make a little change to the 1st Amendment (September 2014)? The Dems want to just control free speech. The Donald doesn’t suffers fools gladly even If they do belong to the fourth estate. His most endearing trait, but Not Disqualifying. 12 – This falls under the category of throw something at the wall and see what sticks. And the Dems have made a living since the '50s making public statements against the CIA. The Constitution says nothing about mandatory attendance at security briefings. I’m sure there is someone in the room paying attention. Would I like him to be a policy wonk? Yes. But since he is not Senator Rubio… or heaven help us, Pres. Carter, I’m OK with him delegating this meeting to someone else. Not Disqualifying. 13 – Russian hacking. Kind of strange charge here. Mrs Clinton puts national security at risk by not following the security rules (see her own memos prohibiting her actions) about storing government documents. Her bad practices lead to them being hacked – and this disqualifies Trump and not Clinton? These were the e-mails Secretary Clinton said she wanted the public to see. And I write this after Dems hero (remember) Julian Assange has said the hacks did not come from any State (Russia, China, North Korea, Lichtenstein) and one of his group in the UK claimed that he got the docs from a burned-up Sanders supporter. This goes back to Donald making a joke that maybe the Russians can find Hillary’s 30,000 lost emails. Attempting to make a funny - Not Disqualifying. Okay I laughed. 14 – So did his boss fire Director Comey? Nope. Not Disqualifying. 15 – And he won again. He gained in Wisconsin. Michigan ruled that it was frivolous for Ms Stein to sue when she had no magic unicorn’s chance of winning the state. Constitution lets states set the rules. Not Disqualifying. 16 – This is 13 reworded. And as Detroit has shown us the worst election errors happened where Democrats are and have been in charge. Not Disqualifying. 17 – Again an idiotic argument. See my comments several posts above about playing by the Rules. Maybe we can get Mrs Clinton and Mrs. Stein a Participation Trophy. And Mrs Clinton did not get a majority either, so her claim to the Presidency is less valid than Samuel Tilden’s. Surely you remember in that election Republican Rutherford B. Hayes was agreed to by the Dems if the Republicans withdrew Union forces from the South. This led to the Democrats disenfranchising blacks voters and led to Jim Crow laws, the rise of the KKK, etc. Another slight digression – this "losing election while winning popular vote" has happened five times. In every case it has been a Democrat from either Tennessee (2) or New York (3). Learn history or it repeats – Jackson 1824 and Gore 2000 from Tennessee, Tilden 1876, Grover Cleveland 1888, and Hillary Clinton 2016. 18 – Lack of decorum in the White House (and note this for a crime that hasn’t happened yet) is not something in the Constitution either. I’m sure the White House under Lincoln had a lack of decorum, for sure Pres. Jackson (when he did get elected) had the same criticism from the Whigs, LBJ certainly had a lack of decorum … and of forty-some other Presidents I am sure that many of them could be criticized as well. Not Disqualifying. Lastly: Resolved – This of course is unconstitutional. There is no such thing in our system. This resolution would be in order in a parliamentary system (we don’t do that – it is what we revolted against in 1776) and even that is not done in cities and towns but in the Parliament itself (representing the people – not directly by the people). How can you "protect the Constitution" by an unconstitutional process?