Moving Forward

delegatechartThis morning has already been interesting as news has come out that immunity has been granted to the person who set up Hillary Clinton’s server at her home.  While details are still forthcoming, my understanding is that this means that the Department of Justice has received recommendations for charges by the FBI and have convened a Grand Jury to hear testimony.  As explained by Judge Napolitano, that is the only way a Judge will grant immunity.   There will be more to come on this as information comes available.

Back to the election process.  After Super Tuesday, things sure got quiet around here.  But it should be noted that nothing has been settled and nobody has won yet.  There is much yet to happen and things can change quite quickly.  Let us not forget that there is still a possibility of a brokered convention should no one get the needed amount of delegates.  But that’s not all that’s going on with the Republicans!

Mitt Romney is expected to say something today.  Rumors are abound at what this may mean, but the main rumors are that the establishment won’t let Trump win the Presidency and may finance an independent run by Romney to ensure this.  That of course would give the win to the Democrat, whomever that may be, which looks like Clinton today.  The establishment don’t care who wins between Clinton, Rubio or Cruz, they are all bought and paid for puppets.  This Primary season is turning out to be one of the craziest in recent memory. Enjoy tonight’s debate and let’s get excited about Spring’s fast approach  🙂

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Keeping the ball rolling 🙂

  2. gmanfortruth says:
  3. gmanfortruth says:
  4. gmanfortruth says:

    So far it appears that Romney will only be giving a Trump bashing speech. Typical establishment hack, no wonder he lost to Obama.

  5. gmanfortruth says:

    http://patriotrising.com/2016/03/02/republican-debate-tickets-given-to-elected-officials-just-50-for-public/

    Expect a lot of BOO’s for Trump. This happens when they load the place up with establishment hacks.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      “Most are likely unaware that a sizable portion of the debate’s ticket allocation was controlled by the Michigan Republican State Chair,” reports DC Whispers, namely Ronna Romney McDaniel.

      None other than Romney’s niece. Couldn’t ask for a better set up for the establishment.

  6. Ya know, conspiracy theory’s aside, I’ve had this uneasy feeling deep down inside me. When Trump first came out I, like many, thought he was just getting attention again. But then I thought maybe this could be a good thing. He is an outsider, not politically correct and says what he feels, successful businessman, etc. Then when I take into account how buddy-buddy he is with the Clinton’s, that uneasy feeling starts growing.

    Maybe this has been planned all along. Trump comes along and splits up the Republican party and then runs 3rd party almost ensuring Hillary gets the win. Or if he does get the Republican ticket then someone else comes along 3rd party (enter Romney) and takes enough votes to ensure Hillary gets the win.

    I said before this dog and pony show started that Hillary WILL BE our next President….it has already been decided. (That is IF we have a next President) I know, I know, call me crazy, call me paranoid, call me whatever….but I don’t trust anyone. Especially politicians or their friends or their families. 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I’m not sure this country could handle a conspiracy at this point, much less a probable felon in the Oval office. This has been interesting so far and things seem to be heading into some uncharted waters. And I agree, let’s actually have an election first, something many are saying may not happen for various reasons, all of which would be logical.

  7. Romney seems to be a lot like Jeb. Has delusions of grandeur.

    Just because he won the nomination last time around means absolutely nothing. He was selected and I voted for him because he was “not” Obama. Sort of the same way Obama did get elected. But, unlike his rival, he had no charisma, no spark that set people off.

    he allowed the other side to set the debate and was cautioned by geniuses like Karl Rove to tone it down after the first debate. He toned it down to the point where he put people to sleep. Anyone remember the moderator on Debate # 2 interjecting that Romney was off on his facts when he was not? Trump would have torn her head off! I was surprised that no one in the media seemed to remember this especially when Trump took on Megan. .

    The less PC commentators not to mention the ones better versed in American history know damn well and have remarked on how rough and tumble politics used to be. Nothing was off the table for the other side. Today the dems still play politics as a full contact sport (they never stopped) and the oh so “civilized”, ivy league, country club, Wall Street, old money, republicans think it a gentleman’s game.

    “Ma, Ma who’s my Pa? He’s in the White House Ha, Ha, ha!” I believe this was aimed at two elected republican presidents. Harding being the most recent. Had truths been even intimated about JFK or the former rapist in chief we would’ve been called unfair and in the gutter!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Trump v. Clinton in debate would be priceless and quite entertaining. I’m still simply amazed how anyone can support Clinton with all of her skeletons in full view and new ones coming out all the time. That’s a moral compass problem. As I was reading the comments between JAC and D13, I can understand how easy it is to have some differences in thinking. I grew up a Democrat, in a Democrat controlled area of NE Ohio. It still is that way today. What is also the same is the government corruption. It continues as if time has not moved, truly amazing. At this point in time, I think having a previous Democrat who has come to his senses and changed over to freedom’s side is an asset, rather than a negative. Knowing the others mindset is a great weapon, something Trump seems to possess. The others have no idea how the Liberal Left thinks. Frankly, I think Hillary would wipe the floor with Rubio and Cruz wouldn’t fair much better. Trump isn’t intimidated, he won’t pander to the establishment and he’ll speak what he thinks. I would rather hear a person speaking as he really thinks than one who has a carefully crafted list of talking points and specially prepared answers. Rubio has already shown his metal….err…weakness using the latter method. He has also taken the “attack Trump” platform beyond adulthood and has gone into the childish. He’s not Presidential, he’s a follower. I’m still working on a better understanding of Cruz, beyond his snakelike political moves. I would have to support him if Trump would falter. Fun stuff this political stuff 🙂

      • People tend to forget how Ronnie Reagan morphed from an FDR democrat, left of center.

      • I just can’t take it anymore-Trump doesn’t say what he thinks-he’s as political as everyone else-he says crap and then takes it back or tones it down the next day if he gets to much republican blow back-he lies about his lying. Good grief vote for him if you want to -but stop with this BS.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Your flaw VH is that Trump has time and again said things that pundit’s and media people alike clearly stated should have ended his campaign. This doesn’t happen to a politician more than once. Look at how Howard Deans campaign came crashing down over a silly scream. So, sorry, I reject your claim that he is just being a politician. The proof has been all over the news and he shouldn’t even be in the race as many times as he has opened his mouth in a non-politician manner. The BS is where it belongs, in Rubio’s camp.

        • I do not find him to be a likable person. I have a good High School friend who was a bank lawyer, very successful Bronx boy. Hates his guts. Been on the other side of the table in negotiations with Trump. Trump is a foulmouthed, loud, boisterous over the top negotiator. He takes no crap from anyone.

          My friend wants to know how I being a conservative could possibly support him.

          Part of the reason is that I know that most of what you see is an act. I’ve seen it before.

          If I may make an analogy which I have used for years. As a vet, I went through basic training. I had Drill Sergeants back in the day when they could take you behind the latrine and work on your attitude up close and personal. I learned most of my profanity from them I also learned how to string it together to make it effective. This was a trait that came in very handy in the management/construction field though it would have appalled my wife or my mother.

          When my sons went off to basic or to the Academy in James’ case, I explained all this to them. There is no hate, no dislike in what they do. They are trying to get your attention and hold onto it! Actually it is quite entertaining because you can read between the lines. In many cases I had a hard time not laughing. It is very important not to laugh. If you let on that you “get it” they will “get you”. In my case, the lessons they taught were brought home not trough fear but through the intensity of the way they were taught. The more screaming, carrying on, the more important the lesson.

          That was way back in 1969. It has stayed with me. In my professional life I recognize it
          when I see it. Trump was not in the military but he did go to a military school circa 1964. Those schools are much more harsh when it comes to petty harassment than the military. Just re-read “Lord of the Flies” to see what kids are capable of.

          Trump is also the second son, not the one groomed to take over. That was his older brother. He, could not handle it. He either drank himself to death or suicided, the facts are not that clear. Donald learned from this. When he is busy acting like an A-hole of the 1st magnitude, look at his kids. They seem to have come out ok .

          Now I will say one other thing. It has to do with perceptions of men and women of the same thing. In my dealings in the work world, Men and women are vastly different. While there are a few bitchy men who throw their weight around and are not acting, there are very few women who are acting. Generally I hate working for them. They do not understand any of what I have said above. The absolutely worst job I ever had was a female commissioner who seemed to think she needed to scream, yell and exile people fifty miles from where they lived to get the job done. She was very highly thought of because projects, years in the planning by her predecessor ( a mild man whose management style was of St. Francis but got respect) came to fruition on her watch. Four years down the road, when all that dried up there was nothing, absolutely nothing that she had accomplished on her own. Didn’t matter some huge bank hired her.

          My best moment in 21 years of the Civil Service was when I bested her, called her bluff, and told her she couldn’t fire me, I .was Civil Service and already working in the City office geographically farthest from my home. If you have ever seen “Mr. Roberts” I have to say that leaving her office that day, I felt like Henry Fonda when he left Jimmy Cagney’s cabin after throwing the Captain’s prized potted palm over the side. The screaming match (one sided) had attracted everyone on the ninth floor to her side of the building. As I left, the folks parted for me like Moses. I have never had any doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton and her ilk are exactly like my ex commissioner.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I have no problem with people being assholes when doing their job. Thats whats needed in many cases and when your negotiating from a position of power, you run with it HARD! That’s how success is achieved in negotiations, having been a union rep, I have done the very same thing. Nurse Managers hated when I represented their people because they knew if they did anything wrong, even something small, I would turn it against them hard. Needless to say I wasn’t liked much. But I ALWAYS turned it off when doing my normal job and was kind and courteous to everyone.

            On a lighter note, those basic training days were sure interesting. They couldn’t hit when I went in, they used other methods like sleep deprivation and KP duty. I did my share of both. On our third Drill Instructor, the one that had one eye looking at you and the other looking at the next guy (which made it really hard when he was in your face screaming), I made the mistake of speaking as I always did at that age, without thinking first 🙂 He was all up in my face and when I yelled back “Yes Sergeant” he screamed back “Did you just spit on me?” My stupid reply ” No Sir, Just returning Yours”. Guess who got the nightshift cleaning the visitor center for a week? 😀

            As I type this, Romney is giving his hit piece on Trump. So far he is showing his ignorance of economics. This, like every attack previously, will probably backfire again, which will further piss off the establishment. They haven’t learned yet. The people are pissed at THEM, not at some businessman with 10 billion bucks in the bank.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            I thought it was Jack Lemmon “Ensign Pulver” who threw the potted palm over the rail. Mr Robert’s had been transfered and killed already…..maybe it went over the rail 2X.

            I found that in the military, the yelling and little BS things were to get you to pay attention to details. Thinking about those seamingly little petty detail might some say save you and your shipmates. Sort of like the tractor driver who backed the huffer up to a loaded bomb rack on the Enterprise. Oblivious to the end result. Ditto the magnesium flare on the Oriskany, ESD on the Forrestal, well sometimes shit happens.

            In my early work career I managed work like I played chess. There was a goal, and you manuvered until either the the end result was accomplished and the oppostion capitulated. There was respect, but NO friends. I was not there to gain friends. However when I joined IBM in ’80 carrying that style forward just got you stomped by management. I was highly encouraged to take Dale Carnegie’s course on “how to win friends and influence people” as to how I was to operate successfully within the IBM culture. They said I have to let other people feel that they were the winner and let them think that the victory was theirs. The problem was that those people usually caused the problem and you had to get them to change. Sure the process was successfully changed, except at all times those people got the awards and advancement…;..the overall issue was that the people who controlled my career were the ones advising but also were extremely threatened by my skills and techniques. Eventually you either had a choice…resign or just to go along to stop the abuse…..In the military they are constantly looking for the agressive but good leaders. They’d keep throwing it at you and there were NO limits to how far you could go, unless the job was totally political. In business the reverse is true usually. They want those that will just do as you’re told. Regardless of the outcome. Management always seemed to have an escape hatch and would bail, just before their failed policies hit the fan. Guys like me were left or brought in to rebuild. But that takes behavior that is sometimes harsh but fair. It’s either lose the division or change. Then a new set of senior managers were brought in. And we’d start all over again instead of building and learning on the mistakes of the past…….For 30 plus years I was the guy who was always tapped to fix the problem. Sort of “In case of Emergency, break glass” Then you’d get stuffed in a hole until the next time…..by 2010 I was totally burned out and completely disillusioned. I was a slow learner…hah.

            Was up for an award in the military. The board was 2 admirals and 1 four striper.(captain) I gave the answers as I saw them and from my experience. The other guy gave the answers the admirals wanted to hear. Which was that their policies were fantastic and he stroked their egos. The Captain sided with me but he was on the losing end of the debate. He was outranked by a large margin. After the hearing he gave me some background. He had just spent a long time at Annapolis studying the problem and writing a report to the Pentagon as to how to fix the issues that we were talking about and he said my numbers were incorrect. They were 15% to low. Not only were the admirals unwilling to hear my numbers and reasoning but absolutely wouldn’t listen to the official studies findings. Needless to say, they were political and would be dumped as soon as the shooting started. Then the fighting admirals would be deemed obsolete and we’d start all over again.

            • First Doug Roberts did it. Then after his death, Ensign Pulver, the toady did it . Doug Roberts had given him spine.

              Mr. Roberts and Arsenic and Old Lace. Two of the funniest stage play to film movies ever!

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                That’s right…I remember now, that when Pulver did it he had to get rid of the chain first.

                Arsenic and old lace…………CHARGE!!!!!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          You are not getting a good idea of why it is so hard to make substantive changes. When reason and reality become the enemy of “action” it does become frustrating.

          The left and DNC machine is starting to put out their stuff on Trump. I don’t know why now but it is starting to come out. It is going to be sad watching all the Trump supporters rationalize his actual behavior to comport with their new perceptions.

          Keep up the good fight my dear. You are not alone.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      I’m funny that way. I always believe that even though technology and events change over time, people and their overall interactions do not. The evolution of human behavior takes much longer than we are led to believe.

      Like all good socialists and progressives, to quote Hillary….”never let a crisis go to waste” So why not keep creating them. Just listening to the testimony of the government on trying to get at the cell phone information of the San Bernadino shooters. You really have to give up rights for your own safety and good. But this is a one time deal. Hah…our whole legal system is based on precedence. To be glib, but once the camel gets its nose under the tent….you all know where that will lead, if Apple loses.

  8. Dale A Albrecht says:

    An NBC headline….”Romney to eviserate Trump” I seriously doubt if Romney knows which end of the knife to use. He certainly used the sharp end on himself during the last presidential election.

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    http://eaglerising.com/31069/is-this-an-1860s-moment-what-will-become-of-the-republican-party/

    This is interesting in the fact that many “so called” conservative Republican’s have promised that they won’t vote for Trump should he win the nomination (which I still have my doubts that he will). I’ve posted several links on this subject over the last few days. There has been much discussion about Trump as well. Like D13, I see Trump as a Centrist, with views on both sides of the faux political paradigm.

    One thing that these so called Republicans who have stated they would vote for Clinton over Trump, is just more evidence that there is only one team in DC, the establishment team. Despite the two different names, this past year has really put things into perspective, the Republican party, in DC and at many State levels, are no different than most Democrats. Sure, there are those who are further to the Left or Right, but most are simply the same. As this election cycle moves ahead, I can see the Republican Party getting left behind, as real conservatives are going to move on without them.

    • Former Gov. Christie Todd Whitman ( a Mayflower Republican) pretty much said as much yesterday on the John Gambling program. Bitch!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        The more some of these fake Conservatives talk, the more I dislike them. If they continue as they have, they will be goners.

  10. Just A Citizen says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      Follow up:

      Recently Mr. Trump claimed that he “never settles lawsuits”. Instead he just crushes the other guys. Well from wiki:

      “After 4 1/2 years of litigation, Trump settled the lawsuit against him in November 2013, for an undisclosed amount. Trump’s developer partners, Jason Grosfeld, Adam Fisher and Irongate Developers had earlier settled with the buyers for $7.25 million.[4] The attorneys representing almost 200 buyers in the litigation venued in Los Angeles County were Bart I. Ring and Daniel J. King.”

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I’m guessing that you think politicians don’t tell fibs? BWAHAHAHA!

        • Just A Citizen says:

          That politicians fib is not the issue. It is that you claimed Trump did not fib as a politician fibs.

          You were obviously wrong.

          I did not support invading Iraq, except for those two times I supported invading Iraq: D. J. Trump.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I find it interesting that many “so called” conservatives have already said they would not vote for Trump should he win the nomination, then saying they’d vote for the other candidate. Real “Conservative”, ain’t they.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Begs the question, what is a Conservative?

              Which is why I posted the other two items, which you also attacked.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                That is a good question! Because I don’t follow others well and we are supposed to be free, so why is it important to be ….something. You and I and all SUFA-ites can label each other, and still not agree on the best “label”. We’re asking the wrong questions.

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    Interesting comparison. Comments??

    https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

    How many Republicans, including those running, fall on the left side for that last issue?

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    Which candidate is truly a conservative? I think this piece is still applicable today. Note the conflicts in what people believe to be “conservative”.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/what-americans-mean-when-they-say-theyre-conservative/252099/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Bravo my pirate friend.

      Good president = Good administrator who REDUCES the size and cost of Govt. while also improving its efficiency. Lacking in any desire to rule over others, or to impose view/values upon others.

      Good Congress = Lawmakers who REDUCE the size and scope of the Govt.. to be administered by the President.

      Good Govt. = Virtually non existent Govt.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Good government is a fallacy. CONTROLLED government, if any government at all = good…..

  13. gmanfortruth says:

    After Mitt Romney decided to make himself a complete hypocrite today on national television, a lot of folks are still saying that he will run if Rubio can’t win Florida. There is also a drinking game being established based on how many times Rubio and Cruz parrot today’s Romney talking points. Can this stuff get any more predictable? Oh, if Kasich attacks Trump, which is unlikely, using Romney’s talking points, it a double shot. I actually like Kasich, other than his RINO tendencies about war.

    This is turning into a great election season, considering I have always hated them. Entertainment abounds as we get another debate. The question is real simple. Will Rubio or Cruz use Romney’s talking points more? Who will continue the lame childish attacks more? Was Trumps press conference a look at how Trump will handle things tonight….as in…acting Presidential and keeping the personal attacks limited?

    Will Rubio keep up his attacks? Will Cruz join in? Will FOX ask questions that push for the same kind of childish nonsense as CNN did? Does anyone really want another WWE Republican debate event? Word is, the campaign managers are all talking in order to make sure it;s a good show tonight!

  14. gmanfortruth says:

    • gmanfortruth says:

      UMMM, it seems someone is a lying hypocrite.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        How many casino’s and hotels has Trump go into bankruptcy? Trump is being called a smart business man and using the laws to his benefit….So by the same standard doesn’t Romney rate the same status? Sorry, but I dislike both of them.

        • Trump has apparently had five bankruptcies out of all his deals. The interesting thing for me is the things he has built. He built high end high rise housing on the upper West Side over the old Penn Central rail yard. You should have heard the bitching and moaning from the West End Ave folks who were all rent controlled in pre-war apartments who suddenly lost their view of the Hudson. The complex is immense and according to all experts for the previous 50 years could not be done.

          Any casino default in Atlantic City NJ is the norm. That place is so frigging corrupt. The Revel opened about two years ago,a mega buck casino and went bust in less than a year. The bankruptcy put it on the market at three years old for 5 cents on the dollar. Fortunately the bankruptcy judge called foul on that!Casinos brought the place back from the brink then the local dem pols used the place like a private piggy bank. With all the vacant land they had could have created a year round family venue but theft got in the way. Just like in “Boardwalk Empire” back in the ’20’s minus prohibition.

          Right now, the City’s finances are in such a mess that the State will probably take the city over and do what they did in Detroit. Christie is not winning any friends there either.

          Ever see Burt Lancaster’s “Atlantic City”? Great flick!

  15. Pass the popcorn! The debate is being held in one of the jewels of the Motor City. The Fox Theatre. Great place to see a concert or a play. Check it out, just for the sheer beauty of the venue. Owned by Mr. (Mike) Ilitch, a great cheerleader for Detroit, owner of the Tigers. Red Wings, and Little Ceasar’s.

    • Great theater! I love old theaters.

      Here is where I spent countless hours of my my youth in Washington Heights, four blocks from where I lived. When Loew’s shut it down in ’69 I was in the Army. Came back and the Reverend Ike, a Harlem based preacher of God and positive thoughts about money bought and refurbished it. One of the few original humongous theaters left in NYC. After Ike’s death his son turned it into a cultural/ preforming arts center. The theater is damn lucky to have found the Rev while the neighborhood was going down and to hang on till it came back!

      The AIA guide described it something like a head on collision between Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian architecture with Cambodian and Indian thrown in for good measure. Prior to it’s sale, Loew’s removed the statues. There was a fifteen to twenty foot high statue of the six armed goddess Kali in the Lobby above the main entrance. It stood in front of an immense one way smoked glass mirror that was the vestibule for the men’s room. The men’s room itself had about fifty urinals lined up in a row! A totally amazing place.

      http://daytoninmanhattan.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-glorious-loews-175th-street-theater.html

      • Wow! Beautiful to start, nice facelift in the end.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I think I mentioned this before. An old family friend, long gone today, She and her husband HH Wellenbrink had the Montclair Theater, one of the grand old theaters, now a parking lot. In the early 20’s they built the Wellmont which though the facade is now plain, the interior is still grand. The theater is still in operation, except the neighborhood is complaining that it’s causing “gentrification”. Hum…isn’t helping making a neighborhood nice and not a run down slum desirable?

        I have a series of old studio photos of her and she’s right out of the days of the Astors and Vanderbuilts in her dress. Her comings and going from her travels used to be announced in the NY papers. her old estate up in the Pocono’s was very nice. Though in the 60’s the State of PA decided the area was better suited for a flood control dam.

  16. All of you do realize that this will go to a brokered convention, correct?

  17. JAC…let me ask you how you would inerpret a brokered convention…..let us make some assumptions. As I understand it, if no candidate can garner 50.5% of the delegates, it goes to a brokered convention. If I understand the rules correctly as I just read them….in a brokered convention, then the convention can pick the nominee regardless of the delegate count. Trump would be out for sure….but I have a feeling that Rubio and Cruz would be out as well….Cruz would be second to trump….and I think that, whether we want the man or not, you will get an insider…..probably Bush. If I am reading the rules correctly, they could name anybody that was not even running.

    Is this something you want?

    • So, let us further assume that there is a brokered convention and you get Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush….then you have exactly what you hate…..a candidate that would be named KING….His Majesty…a candidate not elected by the people…a democratic process ignored.

      Then you would have a third party. You cannot claim that Trump signed a pledge because if you broker a convention, you have thrown the rules out. Interesting, huh?

      • Two brokered conventions this summer would be great theater. If Trump wins and the establishment bolts and goes third party, the Repub. party will die. If they deny Trump the nomination through back room deals, then Trump will go third party and party dies. The only solution for the Repubs is to play it straight.

        As for the Dems, I think Hillary is toast. Sanders has no chance to win the general. The Dems must have a brokered convention to get anyone viable. I still think it will be Biden/Warren.

        • I’d vote Biden/Warren!

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            I thought better of you than that. Biden???

            And you think Trump’s legacy will be farcical. Good grief man.

            If the D’s were brokered they would do better with Webb/Warren. Their problem is that those wanting Warren will not stand for anyone right of her.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      A brokered convention also has rules, and some of those rules are made at the State level. In short, not all delegates would be free to vote as they wish on the second or subsequent ballots. Some states require the candidate to “release” them.

      Second, delegates are selected at State conventions and after the Ron Paul experience the delegates selected for particular candidates will be chosen for loyalty to the candidate. Do you think the Trump delegates will change horses? I do not. Which means to take it away from Trump ALL the others would have to settle on one person.

      Who is this ALL???? A mix of hard core Cruz supporters and Rubio supporters. I don’t see those two groups “coming together” over a “new” person. It is possible the two could get together and “make a deal”.

      The “establishment” cannot simply take over the convention and select their own person. The “delegates” chosen by the States do all the voting.

      One other thing many folks are missing. The candidate has to win the majority of delegates in at least 8 states to be considered eligible for POTUS at the convention.

      It is possible that Trump is short a majority but no other candidate has 8 wins. Meaning they are not eligible. Don’t think the party elders anticipated that one.

      I have not read the convention rules yet but will add to this once I get a chance.

      To the bigger questions.

      1. I do not think it will be brokered. I think either Trump or Cruz wins. Rubio a slim maybe.
      2. I do not want a brokered convention but do not care either way. It would at least be interesting to watch for a change. I miss the good ol’ days.
      3. The Republican Party is in trouble and I do not think a brokered convention is going to make a difference with respect to the rift in the party or its possible break up. This election has highlighted the problems and the vitriol between the factions might prevent a healing later.
      4. I do not want Romney or Bush, or Kasich for that matter. Although the latter might at least reduce the deficit, after he raises taxes.

      Maybe there would be an advantage if the R’s did appoint the King they want. It would end the charade and perhaps new coalitions would form to create a new conservative/libertarian party.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Question JAC, what happens if the Conventions fail to name a candidate? While it has never happened that I know of, is it possible?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          I do not know. That is unchartered waters. The reason is that someone will be nominated at the convention. They can keep messing with the procedures until they get what they want.

      • JAC…not entirely true…..the republicans can elect anyone that they want in a brokered convention. They could walk outside and pick a dog catcher off the street. It dos not have to be a recent or even a past candidate and it does not even have to be a “registered” REpublican, whatever THAT means.. The main issue as you noted, is how the delegates vote and, in some states, delegates can be released. In some states, delegates can be replaced. But…in order to get delegates released, deals can be made. Release your delegates for…..whatever.

        You are also talking about Republican rule 40(b) and about the 8 states, however, that rule is going to be changed in April in the Spring Convention….this rule can be arbitrarily changed and the candidates have absolutely NO say in it…..just like the Democratic candidates had no say when the Dems went to Super Delegates years ago to control their convention. Rule 40(b) can be changed even on the floor of the Republican Convention to lower the number of States that it takes…and…even after the first vote, those states that are required to vote for a candidate because of the majority win can change their vote the second time around and are not required to follow the state rules after the first vote and that includes being released.

        Rule 40(b) was put in to stop a Ron Paul type of candidate….but is about to backfire. I can tell you for certainty that Rule 40(b) is on the chopping block. If the hatred for Trump is out there and no one changes their mind…the Republican Party is handing the Dems a total victory for decades to come. Trump will go to a third party and that will be doom for the Republican party and a divide about as bad as the civil war.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          OH NO! Don’t say that Jeb can still get the nomination. That would be worse than …….it would be just bad.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13thecolonel

          Good morning my Texican friend.

          Yes, they can change the rules during their regular conventions and during the nominating convention. Not sure if the latter has full authority for all rules though.

          But the National Committee is present and could meet to change the rules. This is the three party representatives from each State (committeeman, committeewoman and State Chair).

          If they do not change it before the convention, however, it might be that only Trump is eligible.

          As of today, I think Trump wins outright. It may take until June, unless he takes Florida, but he will get his 1237. He is in charge of his own destiny at this point. IF and I mean IF, he starts acting a little more “presidential” he could take most of the remaining States,, short of Florida and Ohio.

          Trump does not need to go third party for the R’s to explode. He simply has to lose under what looks like an ambush by the establishment. That will drive away many of his supporters and they will stay away. Whether they vote D in the future or just sit it out is unknown. But I doubt most of them will ever vote R again.

          The impact of all this is NOT the race for POTUS. That is why the Cons and Establ. are afraid of the Trump outcome. They fear it will devastate the gains at the Congressional and State levels.

          Frankly, that is where the “establishment” and the Hell No Trump crowd should now focus their attention. Leave Trump alone and start working on Congress and State races.

          But alas, they have proven time and again they are expert at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. So why should this time be any different.

          For the record. I do not like Trump. I will probably not vote for Trump. But Trump is not going to destroy the USA, he is not going to launch nukes or start a war over being insulted, nor any of the other bizarre claims of gloom and doom. We may have to suffer some embarrassment once in awhile but the USA will survive his Presidency as we have all presidencies before it.

          And if the R’s don’t like him then just do not claim him your leader. The R party will survive just fine. What it will not survive is fracturing their coalition and continuing to IGNORE the majority which is comprised of the libertarian light, conservatives and blue dog dems.

          With all of that, it is also obvious that much greater work is needed on We the People. When Bernie Sanders polls higher than the R. candidates nationally, I would say we have tremendous work ahead.

  18. Well the school yard brawl is over. Kasich was the adult. Cruz stayed above the fray most of time. Rubio and Trump behaved like third graders. I was not impressed with anyone on technical and policy positions. We need to change the moderator teams since they can neither ask good questions or control the situation. Cut off some mikes.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Went to sleep as soon as the squabbling started. The moderators should simply stick to asking questions that people would like the answers to instead of getting them to squabble. But, that don’t sell ratings.

  19. Take this for what it’s worth.

    If I were RNC chairman, I’d prefer to lose the election than have The Donald win. The reason for this is simple: if Donald wins, he will taint the party for a generation. I’d rather take the near-term loss and hope that Clinton taints the Democrats instead. It’s a bit of a long-view, and maybe it’s giving them too much credit, but that’s how I’d play it.

    By the same logic, I’d rather leave an insane congressman of the opposite party unchallenged rather than fill the seat with my guy. Why? Their guy is a walking attack ad against his own party. The same is true of Trump. Right now, he’s a loony candidate, but if he wins? If he wins, he’s a loony President and not just any President, a loony REPUBLICAN President. If the Red-Shirts are going to insist on calling themselves the Party of Lincoln(tm) 150 year later, they’re going to be similarly saddled with being the Party of Trump. And every crazy thing he says and does is theirs forever. If I were the RNC chairman, I’d be desperate to avoid that.

    If I “let” Trump win, he’s going to rip “my” party in half. “My” congressional red-shirts, who are already several different oft-overlapping factions (fiscal hawks, social “values”, religious “liberty”, military hawks, cro-magnons, and, xenophobes) , are going to be shattered as a semi-cohesive entity and the Blues are going to eat my lunch – they’re going to deal with Trump on every item he shares with their liberal agenda and he’s going to want to “win” and cut deals.

    But. If I “let” Clinton win, maybe she’s popular, maybe she’s lousy, who knows? But at least I have avoided tainting and scattering my party for generations to come. It is actually possible* that a critical failure here could mean the fall of the GOP and the rise of two or three new conservative parties (until a victor emerges).

    I think, by the way, this is exactly why the DNC is so desperate to get rid of Bernie. If the Blue Shirts elect an avowed socialist, even if the rest of the world views him as a moderate, the Dems will be painted as commies for generations (“how can you support the democrats? They elected a commie for cryin’ out loud!”). If I were DNC chairman, I’d be desperate to avoid that as well.

    *Not particularly likely, but possible. <5%

    ———-

    Now, you can argue that the true powers that be want their bought-and-paid-for establishment candidates – and I certainly think that's true, too. Trump and Bernie are not beholden to the establishment the way Cruz/Rubio/Clinton are and are, thus, much harder to control and much less reliable. But I think this is only a piece of the puzzle. It relies on an all-powerful conspiracy theory of puppeteers to be completely true. I think it's just another factor, but my personal suspicion is that the lion's share is political operators trying to win in a way that positions themselves better for more long-term winning and (ultimately) the preservation of their own power.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The RNC is a lost cause in my opinion. The rise of Trump is an answer for how the Republican leadership did their job in 2015. If the convention continues the trend, it’s dead.

      The DNC isn’t exactly winning anyone over either. A Communist and a soon to be felon. The Democrats have a long history of corruption, especially at lower levels. That needs cleaned up or the DNC will go the way of the RNC. Frankly, both simply suck. 🙂

      All is not lost though. After almost 8 years of the worst President in modern times, it can’t get too much worse. It will be interesting to see how the establishment maintains it’s power, which is what’s at stake. If they do, then it will eventually take bullets to fix the problem as voting will have proven worthless.

    • From a Conservative and a republican standpoint, the election of Hillary would doom any conservative position on anything for at least the next fifty years (or until a major collapse financial or military) happens. Giving her even one SCOTUS nomination and possibly the senate pretty much guarantees the end of the relevance of a written Constitution. It will become a flexible, malleable document essentially meaningless. Sorry, Matt, if the meaning can be changed overnight then it is a useless scrap of paper. That is what Orwell talked about in “1984”.

      Those of us who are lucky enough or unlucky for the past fifty or so years to be paying attention, year by year, election by election, sort of think that this is it, the big one. Win now, place the country back on a sound financial track which will lead to a more conservative traditional government or become Venezuela or worse.

      Now the well educated, rich folks will be fine ( the Commissar class always makes out) but the middle class will continue to turn into drug addicted marginally paid zombies.

      The good news today was that unemployment is down to 4.9% the better news is that labor participation rates are up. The bad news, poorly or not reported at all, is that full time employment continues to drop.

      There was a time if I remember correctly when full time employment and part time were counted separately. That was also the time when they did not fudge inflation by dropping and adding items to the CPI.

  20. gmanfortruth says:
    • Pretty simple..they are starving. North Korea will rattle his sabre…the UN will buy him off with food….he has no nukes, despite the reports of the opposite…and their guidance system….well, they have proven they can hit the ocean.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        How can you say they have “no” nukes when they have set off tests? Are you claiming they have no warheads?? How can that be with the Chinese assistance they had thirty years ago.

        • Did not say that they have not tested, did not say they did not have “FROGS” nor short range tactical missiles….all I said was, they do not have nuclear weapons.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            d13

            I know what you said. I am asking how this could be given evidence to the contrary.

            Assuming the “short range tactical missiles” have no nuclear warheads, right???

            “FROGS”….????

            • Sorry….FROGS = Free Rocket Over Ground meaning that they are area weapons with no sophisticated guidance system….The old Soviet Union used to have them but sold thousands of them on the open market in the middle east and to China as well as North Korea. Look, the pictures you see on TV and in the magazines with North Korea displaying their weapons systems are mostly non working and mock ups painted and fixed to look real. I am not saying that they do not have a few sophisticated missiles…..but very few. North Korea has enough resources for a full scale attack only on South Korea to last 70 hours. That is now we measure things now…by the hour. Meaning, if they lined everybody up on the DMZ with all their weapons and their aircraft and what navy they have, and yelled charge….they can sustain an operation for 70 hours.

              Ok, JAC….military terminology….let me revise. Simpy testing, to us, means no nukes. In other words, if we were to move on the battlefield today, we would not fear nuclear strikes or even tactical nukes. We would fear chemical attacks because North Korea has sufficient chemical stores. South Korea and our navy and air force would stop North Korean cold within 15 kilometers of the DMZ….North Korea could fire the few missiles it has and it would be over quickly.

              Back to nukes…..again, testing to us does not mean nukes on the battlefield. We know that they have conducted four tests…..but they do NOT have nuclear tipped missies nor the delivery system…..so if you wish to use the terminology that they have nuclear weapons, you would be wrong. If you use the terminology to say that they have tested nucear fusion, both atomic and hydrogen, you would be correct. But testing does not a missile make.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                d13

                Yes, I understand that. I thought they had “war heads”. I know the delivery systems are suspect but I thought they had tactical nuclear weapons and of course “bombs”.

                My assumption, that testing shows capability since the explosion system is that used in warheads or bombs. And thus they had the weapons but lacked a delivery system to get them any farther than the Aleutian Islands.

                So your saying that we have been victims of a massive ruse by our Govt. all these years, claiming the N. Koreans have nukes and that is why we must contain them.

                What I hear you saying is our efforts have really been to stop them from getting nukes and up until now it has apparently worked.

                What are the chances they do have these weapons?

              • Ruse?…….I think more of understanding the terminology….

                .a news flash comes out saying..North Korea has detonated underground what appears to be an atomic bomb…
                translation…the seismic activity indicates an explosive reading that rivals that of Hiroshima….

                Civiians…oh my GOD they have a bomb…..

                Military…wow, what a bang that was….

                Satellites.. no indication of atmospheric contamination or any other indication of hydrogen nor nuclear contamination…determination unsecure.

                Jung…..Tell them we have successfully detonated an atomic bomb under ground….shoot a missile 300 miles out in to the sea…over a Japanese contested Island….

                UN…Give them food to shut up.

                Now, it is no secret that they have some centrifuges which are indications of capabilities to go nuclear……..no Korean nuclear material has ever been recorded sold to anyone….
                Their missile system is based on the Russian Scud Missiles….most of their missile capability is short range to medium range (300 km)….their NOdong missile system is capable to be fitted with conventional, chemical, oor nuclear tips but none have been recorded…..North Korea even has claimed that it has fired a three stage rocket into orbit…but no tracking station picked it up or confirmed it.

                And since Norht Korea does not allow the UN nor any other outside confirmation agency permission to enter the country…..nothing is verified.

                From all indications, while North Korea is working on technology, they do not possess it as yet.

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    Trump voters are remaking the party from the ground up. They don’t care about Trump’s policies beyond he’s going to “build a wall,” “make good trade deals,” “deport illegals,” “cut back on immigration” and “make America great again.” They figure there is nothing the Trumpster can do that’s worse than what political class has been doing to them for years.

    This is — so far — a bloodless coup.

    http://personalliberty.com/a-bloodless-coup/

    The Trumpster is a creation of the GOPe. Republican voters had their “temper tantrums” in 2010, 2012 and 2014 where they rose up against Obamacare and bailouts, formed grass roots Tea Parties across the fruited plain, and increased the Republican rolls in congress and in state houses more each year. They did this only to see the so-called “conservatives” they sent to the District of Criminals (and sometimes to their own state capitols) betray them with less than half-hearted stabs at repealing Obamacare and by passing bloated spending bills, continuing to ignore (and often advocate for) Obama’s efforts to legalize illegal alien invaders, bringing in more foreigners to displace American STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) workers via H-1B visas and making bad trade deals.

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    This letter was sent to 100% FED Up! by an anonymous author:

    It doesn’t matter who you support for President in 2016. This letter will make you want to stand up and cheer for the 80 year old American who expresses what most of us are feeling right now. Enjoy…

    Dear Representative,

    From the time I was able to vote I voted Republican. I am 80 years old, and have a great deal of respect and influence with hundreds of senior ball players who also network with thousands of others around the country.

    I received your questionnaire and request for money and strongly agree with every question, as I have since Obama was elected. Unfortunately the one question that was missing is “What have the Republicans done for the American people?” We gave you a majority in the House and Senate, yet you never listened to us. Now you want our money.

    You should be more concerned about our votes, not our money. You are the establishment, which means all you want is to save your jobs and line your pockets… Well guess what? “It’s not going to happen” You shake in your boots when I tell you we’re giving our support to TRUMP and he hasn’t asked for a dime.

    You might think we are fools because you feel Trump is on a self destruction course, but you need to look beyond Washington and listen to the masses. Nobody has achieved what he has, especially in the liberal state of New York.

    You clearly don’t understand why the Trump movement is so strong, so I’d like to share with you an analogy to help explain the Trump phenomenon. By the way, it’s not just the Republicans who feel ignored and disrespected, there are plenty of Democrats and Independents who also feel let down by the Washington elite. You seem to have forgotten about “We The People” and who hired you to represent us.

    So here it is, the best analogy I could come up with. Here is the reason so many Americans have boarded the Trump Train, and why you’re pleas to come back to the party who deserted us, is falling on deaf ears:

    You’ve been on vacation for two weeks, you come home, and your basement is infested with raccoons. Hundreds of rabid, messy, mean raccoons have overtaken your basement. You want them gone immediately…You call the city and four different exterminators, but nobody could handle the job. There is this one guy however, who guarantees you he will get rid of them, so you hire him. You don’t care if the guy smells, you don’t care if the guy swears, you don’t care how many times he’s been married, you don’t care if he was friends with liberals, you don’t care if he has plumber’s crack…you simply want those raccoons gone! You want your problem fixed! He’s the guy. He’s the best. Period. Here’s why we want Trump: Yes he’s a bit of an ass, yes he’s an egomaniac, but we don’t care. The country is a mess because politicians have become too self-serving. The Republican Party is two-faced & gutless. Illegal aliens have been allowed to invade our nation. We want it all fixed! We don’t care that Trump is crude, we don’t care that he insults people, we don’t care that he had been friendly with Hillary, we don’t care that he has changed positions, we don’t care that he’s been married three times, we don’t care that he fights with Megan Kelly and Rosie O’Donnell, we don’t care that he doesn’t know the name of some Muslim terrorist.

    This country is weak, bankrupt, our enemies are making fun of us, we are being invaded by illegal aliens and bringing tens of thousands of Muslim refugees to America, while leaving Christians behind to be persecuted. We are becoming a nation of victims where every Tom, Ricardo and Hasid is part of a special group with special rights, to the point where we don’t even recognize the country we were born and raised in; “AND WE JUST WANT IT FIXED” and Trump is the only guy who seems to understand what the people want.

    We’re sick of politicians. We’re sick of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. We just want this thing fixed. Trump may not be a saint, but he isn’t beholden to lobbyist money and he doesn’t have political correctness restraining him. All we know is that he has been very successful, he’s an excellent negotiator, he has built a lot of things, and he’s also not a politician. He’s definitely not a cowardly politician. When he says he’ll fix it, we believe him because he is too much of an egotist to be proven wrong or looked at and called a liar.

    Oh yeah…I forgot…we don’t care if the guy has bad hair either.

    We just want those raccoons gone.

    Out of your house.

    NOW!

    This article was posted: Friday, March 4, 2016 at 6:56 am

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    This idea is something worth considering: “we believe him because he is too much of an egotist to be proven wrong or looked at and called a liar.”

    I had not considered that possibility but it does make sense. If Trump’s ego is as big as I think he will work hard to leave a respectable legacy of success. This would counter act the fear Mathius expresses about him being a clown or outright failure.

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    Morning thought:

    If we believe politicians are beholding to those who give them money to run for office, then WHO is a person beholding to who funds their own campaign??

  25. Let’s play a game:

    A casino offers a game of chance for a single player in which a fair coin is tossed at each stage. The pot starts at 2 dollars and is doubled every time a head appears. The first time a tail appears, the game ends and the player wins whatever is in the pot. Thus the player wins 2 dollars if a tail appears on the first toss, 4 dollars if a head appears on the first toss and a tail on the second, 8 dollars if a head appears on the first two tosses and a tail on the third, 16 dollars if a head appears on the first three tosses and a tail on the fourth, and so on. What would be a fair price to pay the casino for entering the game? And, if you were hosting the game, what price would you charge?

    And no cheating!

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      WHO is contributing the pot?

      • Scenario 1: You pay X upfront, the casino pays the pot amount.
        Scenario 2: Someone pays X upfront to you, you pay the pot amount.

        How much would you pay under scenario 1, how much would you demand under scenario 2?

      • And, for bonus points: What is the expected value of the game?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Assuming the player and casino are rational:

          The game has NO value.

    • No Casino would make this game with the Casino funding the pot forever.
      Either there will be a “pot limit” (as in “21 Blackjack” or “Roulette”) or it will be a game between two players with the Casino taking a “rake”. (as in “Poker”)

      • Flag!

        It’s a brain teaser – it’s not a question applicable in the real world. Just answer it in the spirit it’s intended:
        A) what would you demand
        B) what would you pay
        C) what is the expected value?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathus

          I would demand the full value of each pot.

          I would pay no more than half the value of each pot.

          The expected value is zero. Neither side will agree to the other’s terms.

          One caveat.

          The value of the game is whatever you may feel the value is of sitting and playing cards with the dealer. Or if you get free drinks while playing.

        • Shoot the dealer, take the pot, drink the booze…..

  26. Colonel,



    • LOL….Command Sgt Majors…..are GOD…..just ask them.

      As a Colonel…yep, I do not do PT….

      • But did anyone question it when you stopped?

        • Not at all questioned….The best officer rank before general is Captain….a Captain is a company commander and has all the command power of a general and only responsibility for his company…..the next best officer rank is Colonel….The most powerful Colonel is the one that has the Command Sgt Major as his assistant…..As a Brigade commander with a 34 year Command Sgt Major with 2 CIB’s, 3 Purple Hearts, Bronze Star, Silver Star, and the DSC…….nobody,,,,,and I mean nobody jacked with this Colonel. He ate razor wire for breakfast and pissed napalm…..and he liked me because I was a maverick, a mustang…an enlisted man turned officer. He got up in front of my Battalion Commanders and told them that his Colonel is the best Commander he has ever had….don’t make me mad. From that point on……not a problem. But to answer your question Sir Mathius…….nobody questioned me when I quit doing the APFT and they do not question me now.

          On the other hand, since I was not a West Point graduate, and because I was an enlisted turned officer, I was passed over three times for 0-7 ( Brigadier General )….and realized later, they did me a favor.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        PT….what’s that? As Navy we somehow floated right by that requirement. As for the Jarheads…they were always followed by an ambulance and a squad of medics while doing PT and also standing in the mess hall line. A DI was criticizing me and how I handled my company one day. I just looked at him and said…..well, I still have my full company ready to go…..you’ve lost 15% in the last 1/2 hour due to heat stroke. Needless to say his head almost exploded, but the truth was the truth.

        • The only PT you swab jockey’s did was drink beer. My dad was a naval officer in WWII…warm beds and hot food every night….but he said, if they ever got torpedoed, it would be a differenct story.

    • Two perfect ranks, Cpl. where you are an NCO. with the privileges accorded but too low down to have responsibility and, any Warrant Officer Rank. Nobody has a clue what you are supposed to be doing. You also sometimes control the rubber stamp with the Colonel’s signature on it if it has not been hidden by the Sgt. Major.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        At my first command, initially we had a real great commander. Unfortunately it was discovered that he had somehow avoided duty at the Pentagon and the leadersb decided he needed some political polishing. His replacement was a real ass. He was arrested and taken away in bracelets for misappropriation of government assets. We all cheered. The chiefs were mostly incharge of operations. Me, I had a lab all to myself and nobody ran me and what I did, as long as the work met the specs of the National Bureau of Standards.

        next I was suppose to go and be a part of the commissioning crew of the USS Eisenhower. Was slated to run the air wings calibration faclities. Pulled a fast one on Master Chief Parsons at the Naval Annex in Arlington and got a great station in the med. I saw my Capt once when I arrived and once when I left years later. No Lts, The Warrant Officer had nothing to do with our group….he kept stealing our espresso, royally pissed us off. The chiefs, they just disapproved leave chits. Other than that as long as I ran my dept without issue I never saw them.

        When my active duty tour expired Iran had blown up. Later when Reagan became POTUS I was offered a 6 year hitch where ever I wanted to go, $17K reup bonus and my next rank which would have kicked in my previously accepted application for the LDO program. Sso who knows how life would have turned out……choices choices, But then an E-6 is a hell of a lot more powerful than some lowly ensign.

        • The worse duty I ever had was a 14 month painful stint at the Pentagon….holy shit, I begged to go to war somewhere. That is the only place where I saw something called a Protocol officer….his total job was to ensure that all officers followed protocol…..I got called in question because I was nt wearing all the ribbons I was supposed to wear…I was a line officer….a mud grubbing, crawl in the crap line officer. I did not give a rat’s ass bout how many of my ribbons I wore much less the order they were in….we were also called “green tabbers”, meaning that if we ever had a wartime command, we got to wear a green tab under the current insignia….however, the non combat officers that had seen nothing but desk duty hated the line officers because we quite frankly did not give a shit….and we had to have our ticket punched for staff duty. The protocol was so defined that we sat according to rank in differing places in the chow hall…..only we could not call it the chow hall. It was the “officer’s mess”…..linen napkins and real silver ware and actual glasses to drink from along with china plates. I remember one time I got up to go fill my water glass and you would have thought I shot the POPE…..I was not even allowed to fill my own water glass. We had enlisted attendants running around like waiters.

          Could not wait to get out of there.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            I assume you knew what fork to use? Can’t see you commiting such a grievous faux pas.

            Wasn’t OCS’s alternate name…..”knife and fork” school.

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    d13thecolonel

    Continuation of the principles discussion.

    I tried to explain that I was misusing “principle” when describing “layers” of rules/criteria/values, or what ever you call them. Properly some would be principles and others might be values or virtues.

    Principle should never be violated. However, if you constantly find the need to violate a principle then you need to evaluate it again. Because either you have a problem with a higher order value/rule or your principle is false.

    Principles, in my view, form the ROOT of all other moral and ethical rules/standards that we live by. Because they are “moral principles”. They are considered as truth and thus they should not be violated. To do so causes all kinds of bad things to happen.

    So lets use a different verbiage. Let “morals” stand as the foundation, the root. Then from these must sprout “ethics”. The rules for how we deal with others. Along with some rules about how we live for our own benefit, regardless of others. Things like taking care of our health.

    Now the area of ethics also has branches of philosophy. These include politics and law as well as the aesthetic. The farther you move from the root the more ambiguous the rules “can” become. Not must but “can”.

    For example. Principle: Lying to others will break the bonds of trust. Moral principle: Do not lie. Now when we get to ethics we are faced with those “white lies” that are used to prevent our perception that others will be harmed by the truth. Or that we will be harmed and there is no affect to others either way.

    In this case we know from experience that “white lies” can be good. But alas, we have violated our principle of “do not lie”. In this case I propose the Moral principle is in error.

    It should be “do not lie to coerce or harm others”.

    Now in the area of politics, which we were discussing there are key “values” I consider sacred. Those being Freedom, Liberty and Justice. So when faced with a situation where my underlying “principles” and “moral principle” is being violated along with my values, I must figure out how to act to restore them (or revise them).

    Compromising on some degree of my values to gain much more than I gave up involves two things. One, it is an action in response to coercion or force used against me. Thus it is morally justified. Two, it moves me closer to regaining my values which are supported by my moral and ethical principles.

    I admitted the other night that I was getting a little loose with the use of the word “principles”. I think most of us do, not realizing we have standards that are rigid and some that are flexible.

    I have a serious problem with dishonesty, but more so for dishonesty done to better oneself at the expense of others. That which amounts to coercion. This is not the tricks played by tycoons against each other. It is the tycoon who plays the game against those who are vulnerable and the tycoon knows it. It is the lack of guts to stand by ones word.

    Now I do not simply discard folks for violating this standard. Whether I do depends on how hey handle their failure or mistake. One reason I do not discount Rubio, for example. He explained his immigration stance, took his lumps and apologized, and then said he would carry out the wishes of the people at the expense of his own beliefs. He will stop the illegal inflow and then, and only then will he reopen the discussion for what to do with those born here or brought here as children. He has repeatedly said he will not act further until the American people feel confident that the inflow has stopped and express a willingness to move forward. Now I understand why some do not trust that response. We have been burned many times. I just see nothing yet to think him dishonest in his mea culpa and new position. And no, that is not a pitch for Rubio, it is an explanation of why his “gang of 8” deal does not bother me and why I think much of the rhetoric against him is hyperbole. Including that from Cruz, which has damaged Cruz in my eyes.

    But back to your basic question or issue. I stand by my argument that one cannot sacrifice or violate their true principles to get what they want. If we believe that fealty to the Constitution is in fact a core political value or principle then we should not be willing to violate it in some delusional attempt to restore it. That is a little like the dictator who takes over promising to pass a new “democratic Constitution”. Once those following the leader feel the power they have they will not give it up. A reminder here of the One Ring to rule them all.

    In the various compromises I provided as examples of what I might consider, none of them involve side stepping Constitutional authority (value) nor do they involve initiating force on innocent people. This last point I admit is fuzzy but in this day and age, there are very few people actually innocent. Everyone has tried to use the stick to get something from the rest of us. So retaliation is justified as long as it is not grossly disproportional.

    I will say again, there are differing levels of rules/standards/principles/values as one builds there “code of conduct”. Those which cannot or should not be violated are the ones that support our own Ego or Self Esteem. That support our pursuit of a righteous life, one of Honor. Lying and cheating are two such standards. So is acting contrary to reality.

    Others are more flexible in what conduct is allowable,

    Another principle of mine, one I saw another person use for the first time the other day, is that if you hit someone with a stick you give them the moral authority to hit you back.

    The corollary moral principle or standard is to not hit innocent people with sticks. But it goes further. If you find yourself in a stick fight, how do you end it? If you kill the other person you have gone to far. If you take the stick and burn it…………….. no more hitting with sticks.

    The discussion we were having the other night led me to believe that you and others were willing to engage in the stick fight……..to the death. Not just to fight the rats but to become the rats. My point was that this is violating our stated principles. So the correct action is to destroy the stick, that means negotiating and compromising in ways that further the chance of destroying the stick. Because obviously we cannot destroy it right now.

    So someone boasting about how they will do this and do that, without Congress is just building bigger sticks to be used against us later. We do not want a POTUS who will use EO’s to overturn what we see as failed actions by Congress or SCOTUS. If we want the rule of law restored we have to honor the law and its process while changing it. We need to RESTORE it while trying to change it.

    Yes, it is harder and it may not succeed. But we will absolutely lose if we stoop to the same tactics and strategies of the “other side”. At least those that we deem counter to “the rule of law”.

    I hope this helps, but probably made things worse. 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I have a question, one that I ponder often because of the many principles involved. When a government begins to act outside of the laws that they hold the people they govern accountable, what is the most principled response?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        The most principled response is the one that responds in kind. But using my stick analogy, the most principled is to withdraw all support. This assumes a full breakdown.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        Another good guide to what a principled response looks like is the efforts made by the Founders prior to and including the final Declaration of Independence. Note the lengths they went to, and how long they did it, to get their grievances addressed. Because the over throw of a Govt. is a very serious matter only to be undertaken when there is absolutely no hope of changing it from within.

        Now, I personally do not think a shooting war is needed. However the final action will take great courage by a majority of people. They will have to withhold their votes and their tax payments. They will be attacked, jailed and vilified. But they will cause the Govt. to either pay attention of fail completely.

        One step before that is for ALL the states to get “none of the above” on their ballots, for ALL offices. Then a vote of No Confidence could cause some Solons to wake the heck up.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Good answers all around. The whispers I’m hearing out there is that everyone knows the DNC has the Primaries already rigged for Clinton. The feeling is, the RNC will still get their establishment candidate. This will expose the illusion of choice, once and for all and a great deal of people will get really loud against the general election. We could see millions marching on DC, which is a lot of people. I have also heard whispers that the military won’t protect the them (politicians). Where would you stand under the conditions that both primaries expose the illusion many of us have been claiming?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            gman

            I would vote for the Libertarian candidate.

            I don’t know where you here these “whispers” and such things but they are just foolish thinking, perhaps wishful by somebody. At least at this point. Nothing but speculation and rumor mongering.

            Now, if the establishment does in fact insert Bush, or anyone else who did not run or dropped out, at the convention then I would expect massive demonstrations, perhaps some rioting in Cleveland within the convention center.

            • JAC

              I can’t speak for gman, but I hear the “whispers” after stopping my psych meds for a couple of days! (Yes, that was sarcasm)

              All you have to do is read some comments and follow some links. There are a lot of angry Americans out there. And rightfully so.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Rick

                I understand that. But every time he claims “I am hearing”, I go looking.

                And the only places I find these whispers are on conspiracy sites and places like Alex Jones.

                It is creating the appearance that somebody is “leaking” information or that informed people are warning us. Mostly it is not either.

                Now, I would say it is pretty obvious that if the Republican establishment literally stole the nomination from Trump there could be massive marches and demonstrations. OR, those 35% could just fade away from the political process once and for all. They will become disillusioned and worse, angry. This could have all kinds of affects none of us can predict.

  28. Just A Citizen says:

    Took him long enough but he finally go the response correct. All he needs to say is he will review and revise the “rules of engagement” to make our forces more effective.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/politics/donald-trump-reverses-on-torture/index.html

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I was wondering when someone would pipe up and say the Trump is approving the actions that make up war crimes. I figured someone (although you sort of did here) would pounce on that. I didn’t care for his comments on the subject, but I also see a lot of bravado and rhetoric typical of political speeches/debates. He’s and arrogant bastard and saying such things, in his mind, scares the enemy. What’s bad is that a lot of people seem to agree with him. Although the thought of waterboarding Hillary is tantalizing, I don’t think actual torture should be accepted in any form. Would pulling out Hillary’s fingernails be a form of torture? Like one at a time while asking if she lied to the families of those killed in Benghazi? SHE DID and she needs to pay for that. A jail cell is more appropriate.

  29. gmanfortruth says:
  30. gmanfortruth says:

    Newt Gingrich on Trump: “”He’s an outsider. He’s not one of them. He’s not part of the club. He’s uncontrollable. He hasn’t been through the initiation rights. He didn’t belong to the secret society.”

    For those who have followed the conspiracy theories the last couple decades, this is something very telling. WE know what these secret societies believe. Let me just say, it’s not Godly.

  31. gmanfortruth says:

    Ben Carson has quit. I hope he gets a shot at VP, I think he would make a good representative. Considering he would be alone in that category, thats high praise.

  32. gmanfortruth says:
  33. gmanfortruth says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      Not completely G. Which makes me wonder why the media effort to discredit him. I read on another post that Clinton’s donations from Trump in 2008 were returned to him. I cannot confirm this but it is plain that he has not been a true Red Republican.

      http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/articles/2016-01-14/donald-trump-donated-to-democrats-until-2008

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I don’t consider Trump a true Republican at all. I don’t think those who support him thinks that way either, although I could be wrong on that part. I, like D13, see him as a Centrist, politically. I’m still not sold that Trump will get the nomination, buy regardless, He’s NOT a politician. If he was he would be out of work, because he isn’t very good at it.

        What Trump did as a businessman doesn’t matter to anyone who supports him either. He did what successful businessmen and women do to help achieve success. He donated to politicians. But he has already outed “politicians” and why he donated, which is far more important than who he donated too. It seems a lot of this either falls on deaf ears, or the country has accepted that those they vote for are corrupt and nothing is going to change. That is sad and that is why folks like me are fed with with all of them.

        On a lighter note just for fun, if both conventions become brokered and, let’s just say that this is the plan and it has a purpose, and neither convention can pick a nominee, then what? This falls in line with the theory that they are all on the same team. What happens if….nobody runs? What happens if…..a serious natural or man made disaster were to occur that would prevent tens of millions from voting on the scheduled day?

        • It’s a good thing that Trump isn’t “officially” a politician, because with his record, if the word politician was attached to his name. I don’t believe anyone would vote for him.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            He is a terrible politician. The only reason people are voting for him is because of the other 537 terrible politicians in DC who have already proven that they are really bad politicians. Neat how that works. I still don’t think Trump will get the nomination, despite what voters do.

            What do you think of those 47 or so “Republicans” that said they would vote for Hillary over Trump? Hint, this is another reason Trump is doing so well.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          If frogs had wings they wouldn’t drag their bum when the hop.

  34. gmanfortruth says:

    http://personalliberty.com/are-marco-rubio-and-ted-cruz-natural-born-citizens-broward-judge-to-hear-case/

    This is interesting, considering today’s science and odd thinking from the Left. Rubio was born in the US, too non-citizens. That makes him an anchor baby. This case may go a long way to finally answering the anchor baby debate. Cruz, was not born in the US, but born to an American mother. While I think Cruz has a better chance of being a NBC than Rubio, there still is a few things that should be considered for future reference, which includes that Left Wing thinking issue. What happens if a women non citizen is artificially ensemenated with the sperm of an American citizen male, is that baby then a citizen if born in another country because one of his parents was an American?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      On the matter of who has standing. In all fairness, any voter should be able to get these answers from a court within the Jurisdiction of the candidate. Technically that is all States with Presidential candidates. Why? Because it isn’t fair to have a candidate receive votes if he isn’t legally permitted to run for that office and this should be answered prior to elections. The anchor baby issue needs answered anyway.

    • I believe Rubio’s parents were green card holders which would make him not an anchor baby. Now did he have dual citizenship and has he ever denounced any right to Cuban citizenship. Both have problems with the old definition of natural born citizen as I understand it. That is 2 US parents (in the old days, wives took the citizenship of the husband) and citizen by dint of birth either on US soil or under US control (would include foreign military bases). Cruz has the weakest link and even had dual citizenship until recently. The natural born citizen clause was included to prevent anyone with a conflict of interest or foreign ties from reaching the presidency.

  35. gmanfortruth says:

    The last “businessman” that ran for President, Ross Perot, stated, when speaking about NAFTA and GATT, that they were going to create a “Huge Sucking Sound” of business’s and jobs leaving the country. Not only was he right, but the sucking hasn’t stopped. The ONLY person since then, that is running for President, that has stated he will fix what Ross Perot was spot on about, is a businessman. And some of you wonder why Trump is winning. There is NOT A SINGLE issue more important than jobs. Nothing else matters when people aren’t working. People aren’t working because there are very few good jobs left after the great SUCKING that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush ensured would happen.

    There is no greater need in the U.S. today. All the other stuff is secondary.

  36. gmanfortruth says:

    WOW! I have not heard about Little Marco’s Clintonesque activities:

    U.S. Senator Marco Rubio has carried on at least two extramarital affairs since he entered politics.

    GotNews.com can confirm through lobbyist sources in DC and Tallahassee that at least one DC-based lobbyist has had an extra marital affair with the first term U.S. Senator. Still another Florida-based lobbyist has been IDed as carrying on an affair.

    The first woman was Amber Stoner, a 36-year-old woman who worked for Rubio when he was head of the Florida Republican Party.

    Stoner, who later became a lobbyist, traveled with Rubio at least seventeen times, including several resort towns on the GOP credit card. Rubio still hasn’t released all of his credit card records from his time heading the party.

    A pattern has emerged where Rubio often has affairs with women who work for him or who could benefit from his access or policies. As Rubio’s election prospects diminish — he only won Minnesota — the willingness of ex-supporters to throw him under the bus has also increased.

    Sources from both the Jeb Bush campaign for president and the Charlie Crist for U.S. Senate campaign confirm that they investigated the Amber Stoner-Rubio relationship. A journalist who investigated the affair found Stoner threatening a libel suit.

    Stoner, who has been a lobbyist for the health care industry–just like Rubio, was suddenly cut off after Rubio ascended to the Speaker of Florida House. She hadformerly been the Foursquare Mayor of… Marco Rubio’s office.

    Read more: Got News.com

    • You know, I would not put it past him. He sort of gives off the aura of a wanna be JFK. When I heard that he has been running for Pres since he was elected to the Senate and missed all those sessions I immediately took him off my list. That is what O’Bama did. Then there is the issue of his finances. Would not be surprised to see that he has been bailed out in the past by donors. That’s what Congressman Randy Cunningham, a real Viet-nam War hero did and what landed him in prison.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        In many ways this presidential election season is shaping up like 1912. Imagine Wilson being considered less “progressive” the TR. Certainly the dog fight as to who is conservative or progresive doomed the republicans, Hillary is Wilson, TR is Trump, Taft is Cruz, and Sanders is Eugene Debs…..accusations of a stolen nomination causing TR to form a new party, spliting the R’s votes….could get real interesting.

        So far a clear message from the R’s has not been heard, just brawling amongst themselves. Time is running down.

        • So, you noticed?

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            The ’08 election was a gimme to the Dems. However, ’12 the R’s commited suicide with all the squabbling and then winding up with Romney. The way the dems tore into him about business etal and he didn’t fight back as nasty as he got. Obama was unpopular with the ACA and the election was the R’s to lose…..and they did. They had worn out their supporters in the presidential race. This one should be a shoe in for the R’s, but what again tearing at each other and NOT attacking the Dems and Obama. Even though he’s not running, Hillary was his SOS and vows to continue Obamas policies. Sanders wants to double down. By the primaries Trump should carry the day. Then the battle royal will be unleashed with the OWS crowd and the anti- G8-20 crowd and the dems will egg it on. It’s make the Chicago riots look like a peaceful picnic. Except it will not just be at the convention, it will be wherever Trump goes…….BUT he will fight back and be combative.

            If the GOP robs him and nominates someone like Rubio and or Bush….Hillary will win. Trump will go 3rd party and split the votes. She’ll delay the trial, if there is one until after the election, and then direct the DOJ to drop it…..well everyone knew about the issues and they still elected me…..al la Nixon. She’ll then be driven out in her 1st term unlike Nixon in his 2nd…..what do you think.

  37. I went looking for Levoy Finicum’s autopsy report but drew a blank. Has it been released?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I have not seen it myself, but a leak stated he was shot a total of 9 times.

  38. gmanfortruth says:

    Not many surprises yesterday in the four States having caucus’s/primary voting. On the news this morning, I have heard some “group think” talk, or establishment propaganda, that is a subtle attempt to push voters away from Trump. How do they do this you ask. The “group think” mentality, in short, vote for a winner, began after the last presidential election. It doesn’t always work, because of unforeseen circumstances, but it can be effective. I’m sure everyone remembers Jeb Bush leading all the polls for 18 months or so. This is all part of the establishments “group think” propaganda. We can now confirm, based on the actual votes for Bush in the States he was eligible, that the polls were BS. It’s the best example that I have seen so far, as the so called polls prior to Trump entering the race were proven to be utter nonsense. Even those the polls claimed Bush would beat were wrong, and very wrong indeed.

    Up next, you will hear how Trump “under performed”. The establishment MSM simply inflates Trumps numbers in polls and when Trump doesn’t meet those inflated numbers, they claim he isn’t doing as well. Pure, unadulterated, establishment “group think” propaganda. After today’s Sunday morning political propaganda shows, It will go on record that everyone of them will repeat the meme, Trump is under performing. They will go back to Super Tuesday and say the same thing and how it has carried over since the last debate. It’s all BS! It’s propaganda intended to push voters in a certain direction, which is away from Trump.

    Why? Because they don’t want Trump. I don’t think they want Cruz very much either, but at least he’s a bought and paid for politician. My thinking is that the establishment wants a brokered convention, to get the person they want, whomever that may be at that time. I thing D13’s thinking on this is good stuff. Between now and then, watch who begins to get noticed. Romney spoke up, but didn’t get a reaction that the establishment can push. Frankly, I think putting Romney out there was a mistake. So, who comes out next? Does the establishment go back to Bush as D13 has stated or will another career politician come out of the pack, like Ryan? We shall see 🙂

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Just again thinking about 1912. That was quite a watershed year. Up to that time conventions were all “brokered” favorite sons you name it. Generally powered by the BOSSES and political machines like Tammany Hall and Senator Platt. ’12 started a few State primaries on the republican side but still was vote after vote to get the candidate. Took 46 to name Wilson.

      So we get primaries….into the hands of the people, the Fed, Senators elected instead of appointed, prohibition, creating a huge crime class (including the people) Is government better or worse? prefer laisse faire or government into everything….don’t forget, it’s for your own good and we’re doing this for you the people. When the majority of the people say NO MAS then we’ll get somewhere and it will be a slow and painful return to freedom for the individual

  39. gmanfortruth says:
  40. gmanfortruth says:

    After a hostile debate on Thursday, many speculated that Trump was “afraid” of the audience at CPAC (which, from my perspective as an attendee, seems to favor Cruz, then Rubio).

    As the Gateway Pundit reported however, Trump may have a legitimate reason.

    Likely factoring into Trump’s decision was a planned protest walkout during his speech at CPAC and the need to have a campaign presence in Kansas.

    The organizer of the walkout, William Temple, who parades around CPAC in colonial garb, told BizPacReview he expected one thousand CPAC attendees to participate in the Trump walkout.

    Read more: Allen West

    • I have nothing against “true Believers” and the Cruz folks fit that description. I, in my youth, have often found myself in that camp. However, we are at a crucial point in our history and cannot chance even one SCOTUS appointment to the dems with a spineless, let’s make a deal Republican congress.

      So, it is a toss of the dice with Trump.

      Saw Cruz the other night trying to look casual. white shirt, suit jacket and poorly fitting, worn jeans. Sorry, he is STIFF! Now, the last totally stiff republican I remember was Nixon and Cruz is no Nixon.

    • Who needs to get their head bashed in on national TV?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        HUH? Why would anyone need to have that happen?

        • Had the Donald shown up, like the raucous crowds at some debates, that would have happened.

          My first thoughts on hearing him skip it were that he should go. When I put on my thinking cap and remembered the Cruzbots joining with the establishment types in the catcalls, I thought better.

  41. gmanfortruth says:

    My vote for next SCOTUS appointment!

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Well…that was a mouthful. McConnell would never let her on the SCOTUS, she’s to insulting to the decorum of Congress by speaking her mind…..Well said Judge Jeanine.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        McConnell may not be in charge come January. But to be honest, I have no illusion Pirro would be nominated, ever. But if she would be, I’d support it. She is popular for the same reasons as Trump, no nonsense and just say it. As we talk about the many issues here, once a person takes office and gets much better info then we will ever get, I want a POTUS to be flexible on certain subjects. Reviewing D13’s post to JAC about North Korea is a prime example. If only the Potus would tell the population the damn truth on these matters, we wouldn’t have to rely on blogs and alternative media to put it out there for all to see, and in many cases, called conspiracy theories.

        D13’s post about NK is a prime example of how the government makes boogymen out of nothing. When will people realize they are constantly being LIED too? Until there is enough people who are awake, they will continue, when the numbers change enough, they will hang from lamp posts and be publicly displayed for awhile.

  42. I see the European leaders are all worried that a president Trump would be a disaster for world piece. I seem to remember 8 years ago they were all agog over Obama and even awarded him a peace prize in anticipation of a nirvana on earth period.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      If the American people were properly represented and educated on things like war, without the lies and BS, we wouldn’t have all these military actions going on. I think Trump could do that (stop all the war crap). My gut tells me he is anti war, and thats why he want’s to make the military strong enough that they will not need to be used. That’s what Reagan did, imagine that!

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I liked when Reagan deployed the Pershing missles even with Europe protesting that it would provoke the Russians and the eastern Bloc and mean war. Funny how the collapse of the USSR followed not to long afterwards. Plus the reveaiing of stealth, obsoleted their radar defenses.

        Even though Libya was supposed to be a European adventure, pushed by the French, they could not sustain the limited air operations for what, < 1 week. Then we had to step in and not "lead from behind" to quote Obama.

        • I got really tickled when I read the intelligence reports in the 80’s where we had been flying over Russia for years and they did not even know it. Reagan gave them pictures of each politburos home taken from stealth….that really shook up the heirarchy.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      whose “PIECE” ours or theirs?. Being more like them sure has messed us up, so they have to be afraid the tit may dry up and they just might have to defend themselves.

  43. ricochet.com/an-open-letter-to-the-conservative-media-explaining-why-i-have-left-the-movement/

      • Nice!

        • Nice, awesome-did you guys actually read this article-I certainly agree with some of it-the name calling is wrong-as a cruzbot and I don’t remember what all else I’ve been called on other sites- makes the ugly personal.

          Maybe I need to read it again but all I read is that Trump doesn’t represent anything we all have supported and somehow that fact is irrelevant.

          I mean the LGBT doesn’t matter, abortion doesn’t matter, small government doesn’t matter-somehow how culture and social norms do but at the same time don’t matter.

          • I took it differently V. He’s saying that conservatives in name only have been thrown at us for years and we’ve fallen for it, to what end? We are in a place now where no one can agree on what matters. The tension has created a bigger divide in the party, to the point of ‘ what does conservatism mean anymore?’ I think I am most with this paragraph:

            Lost in all of this is the older strain of conservatism. The one I grew up with and thought was reflective of the movement. This strain of conservatism believed in the free market and capitalism but did not fetishize them the way so many libertarians do. This strain understood that a situation where every country in the world but the US acts in its own interests on matters of international trade and engages in all kinds of skulduggery in support of their interests is not free trade by any rational definition. This strain understood that a government’s first loyalty was to its citizens and the national interest. And also understood that the preservation of our culture and our civil institutions was a necessity.

            I think this is what Trump is after, not necessarily the strict constitutional approach that the libertarians seem to be after. This is where the name calling comes in. If you believe it this way or that way, then you’re a Cruzbot or Trumpanzee. It’s caused me to not be able to visit my other favorite sites, it just gets me angry. And yes, I can agree that Trump adds fuel to the fire, but at this point, I don’t see where his rhetoric is going to do any more damage than was already done. Matter of fact, he is around BECAUSE of where we are.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Yep, that is how I took it. Conservatives claim to believe in liberty but call freedom a “fetish”. The guy describes what he believes “old conservatism” is, fails to identify how “modern” conservatives do not share these values then argues for a candidate who believes in NEITHER the old or new.

              I am getting a kick out of all the Conservatives decrying who is and is not a Conservative. What a hoot.

              • I have seen many articles from (seemingly) involved, educated people that are now willing to throw in the towel and lay in the gutter with Trump because, gee others are doing it. This is yet another. I guess if you are unwilling to stand for your (conservative) principles, you’ll fall for anything.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Kathy, This is a form of group think, or “vote for the winner”. Fairly common and those who understand this use it in commercials and on the news.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Awesome!

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Maybe if we’d actually get some viable 3-4-5 parties running candidates for office we’d actually improve this country. There’d be no way one party or the other gets > 50% of the vote and declaring we have a mandate and can do anything they darn well please. Maybe if they had some smaller percent they’d try and run the country not from such an ideological viewpoint. We have the R’s and D’s with such a wide range there is no way they could represent the “conservatives” or “liberals” as the case may be.

          I’m trying to remember, (an age thing) but didn’t the RNC do a hatchet job on Reagan when he ran against Ford. There is no way that Ford was going to win, even against a guy like Carter. They didn’t like his brown suits….to casual. I do not think Reagan would have thrown the Shah under the bus like Carter did (personal opinion) We might have not had to listen to the malais speech.

          • 1976 was like 2008, no Republican candidate could have won. It is probably better that Reagan waited 4 years. More contrast and a better outcome. To bad we had to suffer through the malaise and super high interest rates.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              Most of the time I was overseas, so I didn’t feel the pain like you all did stateside. But I did have to deal with $4.50/gal gas. My budget for fuel was between $1000-$1200 per year. While in the states I routinely drove 40,000 + miles a year. With the increased price, I really thought about my driving. No I forgot something at the store and jumping in the car. If the store was out at the piazza you walked. If the store was anywhere near the commute to work, you waited until tomorrow. Took all the trips I wanted.when not on duty. The car in Italy got less gas mileage than my car back in the states. Especially when I drove it at 160 MPH but I stayed within budget. The waste we do here was amazing. That said, I then kept the driving habit aquired in Italy to this day. Result, with the low US prices, the savings on budgets are huge. My housing was a villa ,gated in a vineyard, with armed security was $94.80. Food was fresh at all times and ridiculously inexpensive.

              The other year I was shredding my parents old receipts. My Dad kept everything. When they were hollering about the price of gas, they were filling up between 6-10 dollars in NY. Phone bills compared to today, were a dream. No cell phone, no cable, no internet, no obsoleting software, no credit cards, the peace and simplicity.

            • The one thing I cannot blame Carter for was the interest rates. The dual bills for “the war on poverty” and “the war on Viet-nam” came due. That interest really piled up in the interim. You are right though about ’76 also 2008. We were dealing with an anybody but Nixon (Ford) and an anybody but Bush situation.

  44. Dale A Albrecht says:

    With Nancy Reagan passing today, may she rest in peace. I was just scanning the headlines on my homepage. Oh, they were just so fawning. Lady of style and grace. Chic not seen in the WH since Jackie K. etc etc etc…..yes she was all those things, but not according to the press and dems when she was 1st lady. To read the news back then you’d think the wicked witch from OZ moved in to the WH. How dare she change the china, her designer gowns, It was refreshing to have an elegant lady in the WH instead of the hay seed frumps that preceeded her for 20 years

    But then again, the OZ part was correct, Hollywood, all smoke and mirrors and make believe.

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    Good morning SUFA. Welcome to your new reality.

    Now please remember those recent heart warming words from POTUS and Sec. Clinton. Everything is just great and those gloomy Republicans should stop criticizing the “wonderful world” we live in.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Why do you think this is new? This has been going on this whole decade, not a thing new about it.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I think Obama and Clinton are lying and knowing they are. Then again, maybe to them, serving folks like them might seem like a good thing.

    • Only Lou Dobbs seemed to mention last week that while employment was up, hours worked was down, again!

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Most of the waiters and bartenders are working multiple jobs. The ones around town you see in several places through the week. They can not get the hours required at one job, but need usually 3+ and even then they usually can not live on their own in a real decent place.

        You do hate to see when a big box store like “Michaels” comes in and wipes out the individual store owner and they’re then hired as just some clerk. Granted and a small business the hours are long and not regular. What then is gone is a sense of ownership and pride. Just a cog anymore. Little book stores mostly gone due to “Books a Million” Try getting the clerk there to talk about literature…not a chance, they’re just a clerk.

        At least at “AutoZone” the guys are motorheads, including the girls. It’s funny at the one here in town the guys all have really great beards and mustaches. Just to be a cashier at “West Marine” part time, you have to fill in ALL your work history and submit it to corporate out in CA. The applications are all online and they ask to upload your resume…it busts it up into so many little pieces it takes hours just to refill in the information and leaves out the most critical data. But nobody reads the resume…only a computer seeking key fields.

        Thing happening is the jobs are generally lower pay. It may require driving and hour each way for a part time job. You spend more just to travel and wear and tear on the car.

        Got an e-mail from a head hunter today. They in general terms described the job and the requirements. $86K +. One thing they never do is tell you what company they’re head hunting for so you can not tailor a cover letter or your resume to better fit, nor tell you where the job is.

    • No job leads to depression. Depression leads to alcohol consumption. Hence the need for bartenders. It’s all perfectly logical.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Have to check the growth of Budweiser sales. An old friend was a distributer and he said when the going got rough the sales climbed. The expensive craft beers suffered.

    • One can never retreat from a leftist position.

      Goes back to Whittaker Chambers vs. Alger Hiss. Former Communist apostates are every bit as likely to face a liberal/socialist Fatwa as Muslim ones. Ultimately, I was always convinced this is what brought Nixon down. They were waiting and lurking to drop a hammer on the man who took down their boy and brought Chambers to fame. .

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        I forgot about that episode. I never could fathom why the pathelogical hatred the press had for Nixon. When Watergate happened everyone yawned and still elected him over the sky pilot McGovern. It was the subsequent actions to cover that killed him…..but if the whole episode happened today, it would make the news, sort of, but would stall in any investigation, as routine political actions.

  46. gmanfortruth says:

    In my rather short internet travels today (was outside mostly) I caught few really cool comments on Left Wing site comment section. This should amuse you.

    On the subject of the Constitution is designed to limit the Federal government………Reply: The Constitution can’t limit the government because there are 2.4 million employees. Liberal logic at it’s best 🙂

    Alos on limited government…..2nd Amendment (Bill of Rights)…Oh you mean like how the Constitution says that everyone MUST SERVE IN THE MILITIA.

    The latter don’t even qualify as logic, but it’s Liberal logic none the less. Spend some time, limited time of course, engaging the Left on their sites comment sections. There you will see first hand why this country is doomed. 😦

  47. Couple of interesting questions, I noticed.

    So…we have a wide variety of ages on this site…..it would be cool to see the different versions of what or who a conservative is….So…..?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The term Conservative is a label for people with certain political ideologies. Example: People who are want less government interference, they are pro life, pro gun, pro religion, pro free trade capitalism and believe people should be self responsible.

      In contrast, Liberals is also a label. They think that government should solve all their problems, hate life, hat guns, hate religion, hate Capitalism and think they need government to survive because if people are self responsible don’t need government. That should clear it up some.

      That’s the short version. The long version will have to wait 😀 🙂

    • Now you create a problem. What is a conservative?

      Obvious 101 definition, one who wishes to “conserve” but conserve what? By 1863 standards if I wanted to conserve values I would have to endorse slavery on a variety of levels. First, it is here, it is 6,000 years old and nobody has the right to change it by fiat. Second it is something “left to the states”. If I want to change it I need a Constitutional Amendment at the very least.

      By 1964 standards the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights act is wrong and Senator Goldwater said so and said it loudly. Again, the answer was a change in the Constitution.

      Both of these are traditionalist conservative values and beliefs. Unfortunately, they USUALLY come with what I like to refer to as old money conservatives attached. I hate old money conservatives. They oppose anything which jeopardizes them and their way of life. They are totally opposite libertarian conservatives. The libertarians, take Jefferson’s “the government that governs best governs least” to an extreme. Everything is ok with them. gay marriage, dope, everybody including the mentally challenged packing iron. There can be NO limitation of individual rights to a true believer.

      From my personal experience I had no clue back in 1965 at age 19, what conservative was. I just knew I liked Barry Goldwater and worshiped Bill Buckley. Working on campaigns at the central office level introduced me to the dichotomy between “traditional” and “libertarian”. I found myself falling between and becoming a “common sense” conservative. I shared some beliefs of both sides. The first time I ever heard the Lincoln quote “the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact” I was overjoyed. The hard part of that is just who decides what is too far? The current Apple controversy is a prime example as are the Snowden leaks and going way back, the Pentagon Papers. All three of these issues have people calling themselves conservatives on 180 degree opposite sides!

      So, Trynosky’s definition, honed over 50 years, goes something like this : a conservative is an educated man or woman, conversant with the Constitution of the United States who believes in maximum individual rights protected under said Constitution unless they conflict with the rights of others protected by the same Constitution. They believe that when such rights come into conflict they shall be modified (or not) by the actions of the duly elected representatives of the people. Court interpretations of sections of law pertaining to the Constitution may only be binding when such interpretation is based on the language and intent of the time said law was passed. The courts are free, at any time, upon request of the people or their representatives to issue opinions recommending that the legislatures revisit law to clarify or amend it based on substantially changed circumstance.

      How’s that?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      From one of the “conservative” pundits. Kind of interesting as it hits on the simple and the complex.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/420055/when-we-say-conservative-we-mean-jonah-goldberg

    • Just A Citizen says:

      While it is hard to find anyone claim “what it means to be conservative” the other side has no such problem. Their failing is in the sophistry used to justify their ethical standard of “selfless collectivism”. They cannot fathom the contradictions, instead claiming that everything is included and somehow complimentary.

      http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/03/22/1761431/what-it-means-to-be-a-progressive-a-manifesto/

      Simple interpretation: This is a description created to rationalize and “sell’ the idea. It is a propaganda statement. But it does reflect how self proclaimed Progressives view themselves.

  48. T-Ray

    I believe you had asked about Finicum’s autopsy. Nothing has been released yet. Later today investigators are supposed to announce if the state troopers were justified in shooting him.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/03/investigation_into_lavoy_finic.html

  49. gmanfortruth says:
  50. gmanfortruth says:
  51. gmanfortruth says:

    http://eaglerising.com/31217/alabama-supreme-court-stands-defiance-unconstitutional-us-supreme-court-ruling/

    Well now, Alabama telling SCOTUS to pound sand, they over-extended their authority. I agree with that part. The Scotus ignored the 10th Amendment, which should be grounds for impeachment.

    • Yes sir…….States are beginning to do as Texas…FINALLY…When Texas finally stood up to the SCOTUS in the Common Core issue, in the Illegal immigrant Issue, and in the Voter ID issue…..and nothing was done because nothing can be done……other states are finally coming around. I read the entire brief by the Alabama Supremem Court which almost mirrored the Texas Supreme Court in saying that Alabama will do what is right for Alabama…the SCOTUS has over-stepped its authority and issued rulings that changes legislation and that is not the privilege of the SCOTUS.

      NOw, if we can get other states to join in…..let’s see what big government can do….and I say that they can do nothing…..nothing at all. All it takes is some states to stand up to the Feds….to start the land slide…..GO BAMA.

      • I might add that Texas, on April 1, 2016, starts enforcing its sanctuary city laws…aw enforcement will start patrolling the HOme Depots, Lowes and other areas of such where large contingents of laborers gather in hopes of being picked up for day work from contractors that are unlicensed. Franchise investigators will start investigating construction sites to ensure that all contractors are registered with the State of Texas and have on site permits posted along with the employee files of all labor on the site. The first offense will be $5,000. The second offense will be $25,000, and the third offense will be loss of franchise to do business in Texas.

        City codes will be expected to be adhered to in that single dwelling homes are going to be just that….single dwelling. Places like Irving, Texas, which is a sanctuary city have allowed tents and dwellings to be set up in backyards and garages…trash pick up is going to be monitored and helicopters are going to be flying around. There are homes that are charging as much as $25 per day per person to house and hide illegal immigrants. They are preying on their own people….these things are going to stop. Interesting times ahead. With the Feds not enforcing Federal Law…and using the tactic of “selective enforcement” under the misbegotten label of, we can’t enforce all laws, our Governor has said…..regardless of the Federal Mandates and directives put out on what to enforce and what not to enforce, Texas will enforce the laws that are on the books…..Don’t want the laws enforced…take them off the books, otherwise we are going to to what the Feds are not doing and that includes the US Border.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Spent three months in Irving, TX, hated it. May I suggest that the State go after the taxi services also. When you have a driver who speaks no endlish or spanish for that matter, and just hands you the GPS to type in where you want to go. The muslim drivers refuse to pick you up if the establishment serves alcohol. Much less to buy alcohol other than at a restaurant you had to drive way out of the city to one of the huge package stores on the border. A dry county is one thing, but the duality of the law in Irving is just plain weird. I didn’t see a large “moonshine” business in competition, like there was in WVa. Dry county, but nobody objected to alcohol. They mostly made their own like they had for generations. They just objected to the ATF and the federal taxes.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          All we have to do is look at the old photos from the early part of the last century and look at the jammed packed people in an apartment, also doing things like rolling cigars for work. The “progressives” put a lid on that practice, if I’m not mistaken.

          Just to change the subject a lot……what if, back in ’69 Nixon had just told the NVA just hold off for a period of time and we will leave. Trying to obtain a “Peace with Honor” Instead of being subjected to 4 more years warfare and other issues, like Cambodia, Kent State etc. I’d have liked to see the presses reaction to that. It would have had to be a lot more heroic, than what then did occur later…..Or is it possible that without Ho Chi Minh the North’s leadership who were a lot more hard line, and not going to allow us to leave without some replay of Diem Bien Phu?

          • I think we ultimately did that with “Peace with Honor”. We pulled out but left them (the NVA) in place. They rushed it a bit with that Easter thing back in ’72. I believe then we sent all the assets back in. The ARVN successfully pounded them coupled with our air support. . The “promises” to Saigon were either worthless to begin with or undermined by Watergate.

            In ’75 when they made their move I wonder what would have happened to their drive had the B-52’s returned along with a new generation of planes? I do though remember thinking how brilliant Giap was to move as fast and decisively as he did. Even with Nixon in place and no Watergate he would have had a very hard time getting assets in play before Saigon fell.

            Had we left a residual force in place and been at all concerned things might have stalemated. Had the RVN been allowed to develop like So. Korea did, things might just have gone quite differently. Easier to do on a peninsula I guess than next door to Laos and Cambodia.

            • I was there in 70 and 71…..I was at a place called Ban Me Thout and my area of operations was from Ban Me Thout north to Pleiku East to Kontum and back again. Ban ME Thout was the province capital for II Corps, in what was known as the Central Highlands. I was assigned to project Omega, MACV SOG, in Ban Me Thout later known as B-50. When the 5th Special Forces was “pulled out”, that only meant that the “colors” were sent home. We simply took off berets and donned black baseball caps, moved our patch to the right shoulder, and we were renamed B-50 TAG ( Training Advisory Group). Nothing else changed.

              We did not leave Vietnam in “Peace with Honor”…we simply left. I woked specifically with the Montagnards and the Nung. Actually, my body guards were Nungs. The Yards (Montagnards) were indigenous people of the Central Highlands….the Nungs were actually Chinese indigenous that immigrated from North Vietnam to the South when the North turned communist. The Montagnards were fiercely loyal to us. They often placed themselves between us and the enemy fire to protect us. We lived with them, ate with them and fought with them.Then we left them. The South Vietnamese hated the Montagnards and we just left them…..left them to die. I tried to get my two body guards and their families passage to the US but was denied…..I stayed in contact with them when I left in 72….and at that time the NOrth Vietnamese were building their forces just over the Cambodian border with tanks and mechanized fighting vehicles. We were not allowed to bomb them or go after them and when we were finally withdrawn, we knew that Ban Me Thout was going to be over run in no time at all….and that proved to be true. The Montagnards were forced to retreat to the hills and they were systematically hunted down. Their women forced to prostitution in the NOrth and the children executed. What was left made their way to Thailand, who refused them entrance and put them in refugee camps on the THailand, Laos, and Cambodian borders where they were subject to raids from the Pathet Lao, the Khymer Rouge and Thailand bandits….their once proud 1.5 million race has been reduced to less than 300,000 today and they are still in refugee camps and refused entrance to the United States.

              If that was Peace With Honor…..no thanks.

              Sorry,,,,,that really brought up some bad images.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                By the way, my “Peace with Honor” was sarcastic. It was anything but, like you so aptly described.

                What was it that James Baker said to GWB…”you break it, you fix it” in regards to the invasion of Iraq. It almost got fixed when HRC and BHO bugged out and look at the god awful mess that exists there today.

              • Thank you sir for the history lesson. I shall pass it on, word for word to my sons.

              • Stephen, I hope you did not take that as sarcasm in what you wrote….Peace With honor struck a cord with me that I thought I had buried but obviously not. I was not targeting you by any means. I was targeting the obsurd.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                I always thought the phrase “peace with honor” used by Nixon and Kissinger and then the follow-up the action, a totally absurd phrase. .

                No sooner than I finished reading your “personal” accounts, I went back to reading a novel by Frederick Forsyth called the “Negotiator” The powers in DC were discussing the “negotiators”, Special Forces activities while he was in Vietnam….went right down the list of what you said…..I think Forsyth wrote about you.

              • Colonel, I knew exactly what you meant. Stupid phrase at the time. General Grant and General Lee at Appomattox, that was peace with honor. Keep your side arms, keep your horses, feed the defeated enemy and allow General Chamberlain to “salute” the surrendering troops.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      With the way the SCOTUS flops around this issue it can not be the law. The law is the law. The use of the word OPINION or INTREPRET by a court ruling is just that. Their opnion at this time and place. Change one justice and the opinion would change. The law can not work that way.

      With the ruling several years ago by the SCOTUS stating that gay marriage was up to the States, the States voted mostly against gay marriage even in CA. But then the courts reversed over time. I’d bet that if instead of trying to jam ,by opinion, this down the peoples throat in violation of a number of amendments in the constitution and have congress place it directly to the people by the legitimate amendment process…..i would fail across the board.

      In my OPINION, a court ruling must pass only if it does NOT violate any other enumerated right layed down in the constitution. You can not trample on 2, 5, 10 only to find that somehow it fits in 14. The ruling must meet all. Like the ACA. Violated any number of other rights, but Roberts said that congress has the right to tax….so to hell with all the others. One of a kind does not trump three of a kind.

      Wasn’t there one amendment that layed around for 200 years before finally passing? NC for one submitted it to a vote again because everyone was obviously dead that knew what it was all about. NC originally passed it way back when it was submitted to the States for ratification.

  52. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Just scanning through the headline articles on my homepage…#1 was “A history of Trumps failed business ventures”

    Isn’t there also an old saying “Nothing ventured nothing gained” The number of failed ventures by the likes of James Watt, Robert Fulton, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Walter Raleigh etc. The “venture” of the American Revolution was not a forgone conclusion. Neither was the revolt in TX against Mexico. In an interview of one of the old astronauts from back in the stone age, he said with the mindset of today, they would not have been ALLOWED to take the risk of sitting on top of those large bottle rockets and they may go boom.

    If everyone played it safe, nothing would move forward. And I do not nessecarily mean “progressive” What if MLK or Malcom X or Ghandi played it safe. here’s a thought. MLK and MX had to be removed because their vision of civil and equal rights bore no resemblence of what the political powerss and liberals had in mind and wound up installing.

  53. Just A Citizen says:

    Malheur county has found shooting of Finicum “justified” etc. etc.. because among other things “a loaded gun was found in his pocket”.

    OK. Lets see if you folks have been learning anything about logical thinking and arguments.

    What is WRONG with this conclusion?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      First, not a surprise. Second, the so called gun was not his, according to those who know him (the serial number says it was stolen two years earlier). Third, if you think you will EVER here government not protecting their own, you are dillusional. Fourth, when one group has the monopoly on violence, it will be difficult to defeat. Ask the North Koreans and East Germans how that works. Fifth, he was shot with his hands in the air first, his so called gun was never a factor or ever seen, and he was shot 9 times. He was assassinated, period. Lesson……tyranny is alive.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        G

        Where do you get he was shot 9 times. The investigation accounts for 8 shots. 6 by State officers and two by FBI. He was killed with 3 shots. Per their report. Another 3 hit the vehicle. Not the “hundreds” reported by the lady in the vehicle.

        • The autopsy report as reported (did not see the actual report) says he was shot 3 times in the back and was shot in through the heart. The sketch (I assume it was a back view) shows 2 shots in the upper left shoulder and on on the right side near the bottom or below the rib cage. It is about half way from the center line. Unless one of the bullets deflected off a bone or took an abrupt turn, there is noway that any of the bullets hit the heart. Other than bleeding out, they do not look fatal to me.

          There was one bullet hole through the roof of the truck. Apparently it was not fired by OSP but by an FBI agent who did not report it. The FBI also fired a second bullet that was not reported. OSP fired 2 bullets through the windshield and one into the left side of the truck prior to it coming to rest. The bullet in the roof could only have been fired by someone in a high position either in a tree or from a copter.

          I am not an investigator or a trained reporter. Why are these obvious questions not asked and answered.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            TRay

            I have this feeling that the outcome of the whole affair was ordained by the Governor’s statements and attitude. The State troopers should not be affected by that but it seems to me they were a little trigger happy. I think it also explains the lack of serious inquiry by the State or County.

            Look at what Idaho did in response to Ruby Ridge as a comparison. I know they are not quite the same but it shows what a State govt. should do.

            Justice is opening an investigation into the two shots fired by FBI, mostly because they failed to report those shots.

  54. I have a new business plan. I am going to hire 535 Indian/Asian/etc. individuals and replace all Reps and Sens with these H1-B candidates. No training necessary. Should save billions. Anyone want to buy stock in my company?

  55. Just A Citizen says:

    I said the other day that Rubio had a “slim chance” to win. Well slim just became none.

    Cruz is still in the game and could make big gains when the primary moves to the Rocky Mtn. States and the west. His litmus test in these parts was Idaho today. He walked away with it and that should carry to the neighboring states.

    Trump’s firewall against Cruz is California in the west and then the NY/NJ northeastern bloc. It is hard to predict Oregon and Washington but I am thinking they go Cruz if the race is close. More libertarian leaning Republicans in these states.

    This could get real interesting. Or it could be essentially over by this time next week.

    And for everyone’s information I DID VOTE today and I voted for Cruz. Was going to stick with Rand Paul but since he dropped out I figured I didn’t want to be the guy who gave Trump Idaho by a single vote. Turned out my instincts were correct though, I could have voted for anyone and it would not have mattered. At least I finally picked a winner in a primary.

  56. So, Mr. Obama, how did your deal with Iran work out?….Let’s review…Iran agreed to curtailing nuclear ambitions, agreed to no missile tests, in return for easing of sanctions and freeing up the money…..that done……Iran captures NAvy sailors and keeps equipment, did not shut down centrifuge it promised, and now has fired two long range missiles with the words on the side of the missiles saying that Israel must die or words to that effect. Great job, Mr. President…Great Job.

    • As if ANYBODY cared. I sometimes wonder if they will care for more than three minutes if NYC goes up in a fireball.

      On the other hand if an EMP shut down social media and every single I-phone on this continent, we might just have a chance of grabbing everybody’s attention.

  57. Ok……anti Trumpers…….you better quit calling him racist, war monger, etc. Your vitriol is doing nothing but giving him strength. He is seen as fighting the establishment and each time someone calls him a name….it is galvanizing new voters.

    Now,,,,more food for thought. The Republican Rules Committee for the Convention is meeting this month to revise rules for the convention. Look for the percentages to change and the rules to reflect new changes in order to attempt to freeze Trump and/or Cruz in the event it goes to a brokered convention. Watch closely….If Rubio and Kasich lose their states and stay in the race,,,,that is a guarantee of a brokered convention.

    I predict that if it does go to a brokered convention, you will not see Trump or Cruz in the finals regardless of the delegate count. I would not be surprised to see the requirements of the delegate count go to 70% to get a nomination. I also would not be surprised to see the Republicans copy a page from the Democrats and come up with their own SUPER delegates not associated with the States.

    THen what happens? Trump and Cruz voters will probably not vote or go to a third party. In any event, Clinton wins.

  58. Also, very interesting results in Michigan with union voters…..Sanders and Trump really scored with their rhetoric of trade costing jobs……

    • Any polls out there on a Trump-Sanders race?

      There has been nothing like this since 1900.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK

        All existing polls on dem vs. rep. have Sanders blowing Trump out. But you have to remember, National polls are a popular vote poll. They do not show state by state which is what really counts.

%d bloggers like this: