The Campaign Continues

RonAs the campaign rolls on, Trump holds a 99 delegate lead over Cruz.  With Rubio and Kasich campaign pinning their hopes on their home State primaries, they are pretty much finished.  This looks like it’s going to come down to Trump versus Cruz down the stretch.  If Trump wins both Florida and Ohio next week, this race could be over.  Here’s what is coming up for the Republicans:

March 10     Republican debate in Miami Florida

March 12     Washington D.C.  and Wyoming

March 15      North Carolina,   Missouri,  Ohio,  Florida  and Illinois

I would write about the Democrat side of things, but with the Super Delegates locked up for Clinton, it’s all but rigged and over.  This short article will keep the ball rolling.  Spring has arrived early here with some great weather.  Over the next few days the temps will stay pleasant but the rain will fall.  No complaints about this winter’s weather.  Short of a few cold spells, snowfall was down quite a bit.  Hopefully the upcoming rains will help catch up on the precipitation deficit.  Stay thirsty my friends, the truth will set you free  🙂

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    I’ll try and find some other issues to stoke conversation.

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    http://eaglerising.com/31253/new-video-proves-that-fbi-shooting-of-protester-in-oregon-was-murder/

    Watch the video and make your own determination. Seems to me the cops shot first, last and actually they were the only ones that shot. I guess this is what happens out West when you diss the Fed’s.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/03/william-norman-grigg/showdown-show-trial/

      To minds rendered inoperable through decades of collectivist indoctrination, those views seem presumptuous, and Bundy’s effort to defend his property seems an impermissible act of armed sedition.

    • We also hear how Finicum attempted to commit vehicular homicide. If I were on a jury viewing the video, I would conclude that the officer panicked and left the cover of his vehicle in a dash to the woods. He chose to go to his right. Finicum to avoid a crash chose to go left. It’s 25% probability, they go in the same direction. The officer ran in front of the vehicle. Finicum did not target him. In fact it looks like Finicum steared further left into deeper snow to avoid him. The officer should be thankful that Finicum had a cooler head than himself.

      The sketch of the bullet wounds I mentioned did not say if it was front or back. If it was frontal then Finicum was shot in the lower left abdomen as many have claimed.

      Still many questions. It will be interesting when the family releases their autopsy.

  3. gmanfortruth says:

    Judy just reminded me that we move the clock’s ahead one hour this weekend. 🙂

  4. gmanfortruth says:

    Has that proud 18th century boast of Americans, “Here, sir, the people rule!” given way to the rule of the oligarchs?

    Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2016/03/will-the-oligarchs-kill-trump/#ixzz42PjVGXVe
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
    Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

  5. gmanfortruth says:
  6. Below is just an easy example for my question-Not my opinion-If this election goes to convention-what is fair if no one gets enough delegates?

    “In fact, if you imagine a few different possible delegate scenarios at the convention, you can see why it wouldn’t necessarily be illegitimate to pass Trump over even if he’s the top finisher in delegates. Let’s take these three. (The first two are recycled from a post this weekend.) The latter two here almost certainly require Rubio to win Florida.

    Scenario one: Trump has 48 percent of the delegates, Cruz has 38 percent, and several candidates who quit the race much earlier have 14 percent.

    Scenario two: Trump has 40 percent, Cruz has 32 percent, and Marco Rubio has 28 percent.

    Scenario three: Trump has 37 percent, Cruz has 35 percent, Rubio has 17 percent, and John Kasich has 11 percent.

    Passing over Trump in the first scenario really would feel like a rip-off. Granted, rules are rules and he failed to achieve a majority, but he’s within two points of the threshold and he’s 10 points better than Cruz. The closer Trump is to 50 and the bigger his lead over the second-place finisher, the more compelling the argument is that he should be the nominee. In the second scenario, then, the case for him is weaker: He’s still comfortably ahead of Cruz but his lead is a bit smaller and he’s not within striking distance of the nomination. Fully 60 percent of the party has split in this case between the two conservative candidates, Cruz and Rubio. To my mind, scenario two would make Cruz plausible as a compromise nominee, avoiding a Trump nomination that would anger the party’s right-wing while also avoiding a Rubio nomination that would anger populists. The party might not hold together but nominating Cruz is your best shot at unifying everyone.

    In the third scenario, the case for nominating Trump is weak. He’s barely ahead of Cruz and the rest of the party is deeply fractured among three candidates. It may well be that to produce this scenario would require Cruz to win most of the primaries remaining on the schedule, a streak which would feed perceptions that the party has trended towards rejecting Trump. To nominate him anyway per Beck’s and Erickson’s wishes would make Trump fans happy but would antagonize so many anti-Trumpers that Trump might be crippled in the general election right out of the box. You’ve got 63 percent of the party favoring a non-Trump candidate here. If you’re destined to alienate someone, why wouldn’t you rather alienate Trump’s 37 percent than some sizable chunk of that 63?”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/08/why-are-cruz-allies-saying-that-trump-deserves-the-nomination-if-he-leads-in-delegates-at-the-convention/

    • You were not around for it but Goldwater won the nomination fair and square but Rockefeller, Scranton and Romney did everything but publicly pledge to vote for LBJ to undermine him.

      Circumstances were different then, there were a lot more problems with the election including the ghost of JFK hovering over everything but de-legitimizing the chosen candidate is what allowed the party to turn back to Nixon (with eventually disastrous results) in 1968.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      There is nothing FAIR about what happens at a convention if there is not an outright winner. Other than the rules are applied equally to all. And they are not changed at the last minute. But even this has been done in the past.

      It will all come down to what the “delegates” want and how their candidate communicates with them. I could see a scenario where Trump concedes to Cruz if he promises to address the trade issues and stay strong on immigration. This would allow Trump to declare he won yet not have to suffer actually winning.

      I can see an option where Trump promises Kasich the VP slot and then Kasich throws his delegates to Trump, pushing him over the top on a second ballot. Cruz could make the same play.

      Personally, I would like to think that Cruz just revealed his VP candidate this morning. But that is how my twisted mind thinks.

      • If Fiorina is a Cruz VP….Clinton wins.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          Oh horse feathers. So you say Cruz is not electable then you say IF he picks Fiorina he will lose. He could pick Yogi Bear and he will still lose if your first claim is valid.

          Let alone this proves my earlier point that claims of the people wanting a strong business person is hooey. Fiorina fits that bill but she is a “liability”??

          I stand by my analysis of the general election at this point in time.

          • I think it just guarantees it. Carly dropped like a rock. Thanks to Romney the success/failure rate of every GOP candidate who has been in business is fair game.

            Listening to one of our local morning radio hosts this morning, Mark Simone, who, like Curtis Sliwa, “fills in” anytime and anywhere. He had Ann Coulter on. Now Ann is full bore Trump, had been full bore Romney four years ago. They were discussing Cruz, Ann has no problem with him, neither does Simone other than to point out he is pretty much “stiff” and has limited appeal. “He is about as attractive as Joe McCarthy” said Simone. Ann, being the contrarian she is called tailgunner Joe, handsome. I tend to go with Mark. His message requires that you be either a religious fundamentalist because he comes across as a “preacher” or a person well versed in the Constitution who has an attention span longer than about 45 seconds.

          • Horse feathers? Horses in your part of the world have feathers? It is ok to say Horse Shit…

            Yes, I say Cruz is not electable against Clinton….but neither is Trump. I say he is not electable because he does not have the RNC behind him. I would vote for a Cruz/Fiorina ticket in a New York skinny minute….in other words, I would vote for that ticket before God got the news. Still does not change my opinion. I do not think the RNC elite is behind Cruz and as much as I hate to say it….would not be behind a woman as a VP. Nor, do I think Fiorina being on the ticket would pull the woman vote….except the Republican woman vote. Trump would not pull any women, I don’t think….maybe his wife…….maybe.

            Now, that said……I wonder if Cruz were to say ahead of Florida and Ohio……Fiorina is my choice for VP….much like Reagan did……that would change some things.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              d13

              Not only feathers but they have a horn and they fly. Only the most skilled riders can stay with them. That rules out Texans and Okies or anyone claiming to be a “cowboy”.

              If Fiorina would pull the Republican woman vote then she will help because as of today neither Trump or Cruz can do it on their own. That is why I think they are both in trouble against Clinton.

              Of course these women will be faced with an awful choice. Not sure how many will hold their nose and how many will just sit it out. I know Spousal Unit Leader is pretty sure she will NOT vote Trump OR Clinton.

              Then again, it can all change pretty quickly.

              • Uh oh……sounds like fantasy horses to me…..Cowboys are for tv shows and city folks who want to play “cowboy”…You might can ride….maybe….but can you rope and shoot at the same time you are riding your fantasy horse through the sky?

                My spousal unit is really perplexed but she did vote Cruz…..but now is unsure….I am watching this town hall meeting in Illinois and Kaisich has surprised me a little in some of his answers..at least tonight he has sounded awfully federalists.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      A little more elaboration. Much will also be determined by HOW the delegates are selected. Notice Gman’s post on the Ohio ballot. That state elects delegates via primary ballot. But not specific people. I don’t know how Ohio works beyond that.

      But many states select delegates at their State conventions. Which will happen before the National Convention. These people are elected by the “official party” membership of officers at the county level.

      So it is very possible that the majority of delegates elected at the State conventions have no particular loyalty to the candidate to whom they are pledged on the “first ballot”. In Idaho, for example, I could see Cruz’s people taking all of the delegate seats. So on a second ballot Idaho would move to ALL Cruz.

      This is where the “ground” level politics is so important and why it is so hard for a “populist” to win. The opposite is also true. If not for their ability to play the “insider” game the Ron Paul people would have never gained any fame in the last two elections.

      • Okay, so if the idea is that whoever gets the majority of delegates even if they only win by one-they should win the primary.

        Now what does that mean for the whole process-what should the rules be?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          Not sure what you are asking. The same number of delegates will be needed to win the nomination, even in a brokered convention. Unless the rules are changed by “majority” vote of the convention delegates themselves. I do not think that rule will be changed.

          As for what the rules should be, that is a very good and much larger question.

          Should the parties decide their own process? Or, should States take control of the election nominating process??

          I personally believe that most of the jibber jabber going on about the convention is being driven by some disgruntled donors/elite and a media that needs to keep a big story going.

          • My point is that there has to be some process or rules determining how an election works-and those rules should be followed once the election starts-not changed in the middle of the process-if the rule is that the one with the most delegates wins-if they make that a rule-then that means there isn’t a minimum required. I think that would change the way people run in a lot of ways. Possibly very negative ways.
            But yes, I am talking about how this argument would be resolved and how it would effect future elections.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              V.H.

              The only rule I see them changing that would not create complete revolt would be the 8 state minimum requirement. And that is because there is a chance that NOBODY would have the 8 state minimum come convention time. So I see them reducing the barrier, not raising it as the colonel believes.

              I thought the 8 state requirement was to win 8 states, but it is actually to have a “majority”, as in 50%+1 delegates in 8 states. Nobody has yet to win a “majority” of delegates in any state.

              This is why under current rules the winner take all states are even more important than just the total delegates.

              But I do agree with you. They should leave the rules alone now that the game started. Deal with the mess at the convention and then stick to the existing rules for the convention. Then if Trump winds up losing he cannot claim he was treated unfairly. Neither can any other candidate.

              I still believe there will be a clear winner before the Convention. The voters will figure it out and move to quickly consolidate to somebody. At least enough to get a clear winner in each state.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              V.H.

              One other comment. While I agree the current rules should be followed to the end, I think the rules themselves should be changed.

              If we want “we the people” to control our own destiny then we need to take the primary process away from the Political Parties.

              Parties can still operate to identify and support candidates, but the process of selecting candidates to run for the general election should be controlled by the electorate, not the party officials.

        • Well, in the general, the “WINNER” of the election gets 25% or less of the eligible vote. Hell, the American Revolution was won with the support of about 20-30% of the American people and the libs have been winning and winning and winning some more with small strategic minorities for the past 50 years.

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    d13thecolonel

    Good morning Sir. How did your Frisbee tourney go??

    Re: Trump/Cruz waling and Hillary getting elected.

    Barring Clinton being indicted the POTUS chair is hers to lose if either Trump or Cruz is the Republican nominee. Rubio could have made a run at her but he cannot win the R seat. Bush really never had a chance to beat her in my opinion. Kasich is the one that might get some traction but that is a wild card.

    Bottom line, Mrs. Clinton is almost a shoe in unless she implodes or is indicted. Those that could have beaten her in the general are effectively out of the race. You are correct that if the elites insert one of them the R turnout will fall below Romney’s. So either way Clinton is in the drivers seat.

    Now all of this is predicated on what we have seen to date. Trump or Cruz cannot win the general with only the same people who got them the nomination. They have to draw in large numbers of independents in KEY States.

    Also, if Rubio and Kasich lose their home states but stay in the race it will NOT GUARANTEE a brokered convention. The greatest chance of that requires they both win their home States. I don’t see Rubio winning Florida. I think Kasich could win Ohio but then that will be the end for him. That leaves plenty of delegates for Trump or Cruz to win outright.

    Which means this is all coming down to how Cruz does from March 15th onward.

    • Why does everybody forget that Hillary never polls above 40% in the general?

      The big question I have is Trump’s last three press conferences have shown him being “Presidential” . Last night’s was about the best I’ve seen since JFK. Even better than Reagan. Can he succeed in backing away from the street fighter tough guy image he has used so successfully to decrease his negatives?

      The other day Dennis Praeger even admitted that in a one on one with Hillary, he would hold his nose and pull the lever for Trump. That, is a HUGE move for him. I firmly expect that the Romney’s and Bush’s will all actually vote for Hillary. They will be buried by the disaffected formerly middle class democrats and guys like Jim Webb who will take the risk on Trump rather than stand by and watch the collapse continue.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        SK

        She does poll above 40% in most polls. Some have her just above 40 and others just above 50. The 50 plus is against Trump.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Polls are useless right now concerning the general election. Just curious JAC, if it’s Trump versus Hillary, what are you going to do? Vote or sit out, and for who Hillary?

          • Wow-that was a really nasty thing to say!!!!!

          • Just A Citizen says:

            I thought you wanted me to stop voting?? Now you are going to poke me with a stick if I don’t vote for Trump??

            Besides, I covered this eventuality in a prior post.

        • Then being out of the limelight has helped her. Back in “08, she never did. I guess absence does make the heart grow fonder.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            SK

            This morning I dug up Clinton’s primary numbers for 08 and compared to this year in those key states already done. Her 2016 numbers are better but still less than Obama 08 in those states. Here are the difference for each:

            Colorado: +10,000
            Michigan: +250,000 Even though she was not opposed by Obama in 08 here.
            Nevada: +4,600
            Virginia: +160,000

            Now let me address all the cheering about Dem turnout being down while Rep. is up. I will use Virginia as the example. Total Dem votes this year are about 200,000 lest than in 2008 (782895 vs. 977586). On the surface this looks great for the red team.

            BUT…….. In the general election of 2008 Obama got 1,959,532 votes. That is almost 1 MILLION more votes in the general than he and Hillary got in the primary of 08 (total of 977,586). In 2012 he got 1,905,528 votes in the general election.

            If we add 1 million to the total Dem primary vote, for this year, we get 1,782,895 votes for Hillary in the general. Romney had 1,789,618 in 2012. So, for the R to win they must pull more than Romney and hope Clinton does no better than adding the 1 million extra in the general.

            My point? General election turnout is much greater than primary elections so trying to draw conclusions about turnout are a little pre-mature.

            • Obama was a unique situation. He fired up the masses. Bernie does the same and so does Trump. Hillary gets the left-overs. Why was Bush III put away so fast?

              What did the numbers look like for Gore-Bush or Kerry-Bush?

              Conventional wisdom is out the window this year. I’d like to see some poll numbers on a Sanders-Cruz matchup or a Sanders-Trump match. That might give you some pause.

    • Hi JAC…..the tournament went well….I hit my expectations and my son made the cut on the professional side and cashed. So, all in all it was a great tourny. Great weather except for the storms that were moving in, so we elected to leave Saturday night. As it turned out, it was a wise decision….but even with my experience in flying and even being instrument rated and even having a new aircraft, I did not relish the thought of flying at night, over the mountains, with no moon. My son said…”damn, it is like flying in a paper sack”. The trip was uneventful and the air smooth….just increases the pucker factor some, no matter the experience.

      I sure do not agree with you that those who could have beaten her are out of the race….Paul nor Kaisich could beat her in my opinion. I really do not know how to evaluate this “anti” establishment movement and whether or not the “anti” movement would turn out for the general election. I think that the chances of a contested convention are 70/30….and it does not matter how Ohio or Florida turn out. If Trump wins Florida, he will not do so with greater than 50%. I do not see it. I see a similar split in Ohio….

      Now, let us proceed to the rules of the convention…..Rule number 40 is the one that is really important. This bylaw, added in 2012, states that any potential nominee must “demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight or more states.” However, this rule can be changed at any time including the day of the convention. I think you are over looking the issue of the party hacks…the Republican party elite. They simply do not want Trump or Cruz and I do not buy the rumors that the establishment is beginning to move to Cruz. I see absolutely no proof of this so far. If I were a Republican Party elite, I would immediately change rule 40 to raise the number of states that require a 50% to 15 states or 20 states in which someone would have to win 50%. No one would make it this year. Trump and Cruz would be out.

      Now, to continue. Even if Donald Trump wins more delegates than any other candidate, if he doesn’t hit that magic number (1,237) on the first round, there’ll be a second ballot. Delegates are “bound” to candidates during the first round of voting based on the results of their state’s primary, but if the first ballot is inconclusive, the delegates can support a different candidate. This is the only chance that the elites can get an establishment candidate into the race.

      Now, rule 38 is interesting. It says.. “States can’t decide to cast all of their votes for whomever the majority of delegates back.” This means that any state can be splintered….this further guarantees that no 50% majority will be reached. This also favors the party elite.

      Now, let us assume….yes, ASSUME….that we have a brokered/contested convention. And no one gets to the 50% after the three votes it takes. The RNC has two committees that can change any rule that they want DURING THE CONVENTION. Having said this, there is no way that the elites will let Trump or Cruz win. Now…..what happens if this comes about….a third party. Trump will do this as there would be nothing to stop him. Let us assume that the RNC “puts” Rubio in the seat. I do not know what I would do….Rubio does not get my vote.

      But this is how I see something happening and I think that the RNC hates Trump and Cruz enough to pull this off. Now, if Trump and Cruz could get together and run together as a team…in a third party…..this could be very interesting.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13thecolonel

        I think your theory on Rule 40 is in error for this reason. If they increase the threshold they will have ZERO eligible candidates. They could not stand the ridicule from the media and the electorate if they did that. So I do not see them playing with the threshold, unless they reduce it. This would make more people “eligible”. Then their effort to prevent the 1237 for Trump would make more sense, as everyone could be considered eligible, at the extreme.

        One thing to remember is that not all delegates are bound in the first round. Some states allow their delegates to be “unbound” if their candidate has dropped out of the race. Others do not. I do not have the list of who they are but this could be enough to give victory on the first ballot if close to the 1237 count.

        I agree that party leaders hate both. So do some of the donors, we call establishment. I think some of the “conservatives” also hate Trump but not necessarily Cruz.

        Now if I were the “establishment” and I wanted to get this “conservative” thorn removed from my side once and for all, I would just let Trump win the whole thing. Don’t say or do anything. Just let the election run its course. Focus on protecting the Congressional seats and/or expanding them.

        If Trump or Cruz crashes in the general the Cons will never, ever again be able to say they could win if only given a chance. If they do win we are better off and the establishment will just claim the victory and coopt the movement, just like they did with the Tea Party.

        On Rule 38, this is to allow the State delegates to form a block vote in order to prevent additional rounds of voting. So while most States will be split in the first round, there will be fewer and fewer with each round. It also allows split states to change their delegate count to make nomination unanimous if there is a victor in the first round. My understanding is that this has been the traditional use of this rule.

        By the way, I thought Florida is a winner take all. There is no 50% threshold. Just a plurality of the votes cast to win ALL the delegates. Same for all the states on March 15th.

        After that we then get into other rounds with states having a mix of methods, including hybrids which allocate more but not all delegates if certain thresholds are exceeded. Some by congressional districts and some by state wide counts. It is impossible to figure out how it will affect the outcome.

        I fully understand and agree that the elite/establishment hates both Trump and Cruz. I think some accepted Rubio but not all of them. He had become “acceptable”.

        However, I do not think these power hungry rats are stupid enough to destroy their future altogether. If they get carried away they will lose power for a decade or more. That is why I don’t think they will play games that are to obviously obnoxious.

        We will know shortly. I think the amount of encouragement Rubio gets to drop out will be an indicator. If party players start calling for Kasich and Rubio to drop out after next week then we will know they have decided to accept Cruz, or Trump. If not then we will know they are laying their last hope on the Convention. Then we will see what games they have in mind and how big a chance they are going to take with their future.

        I still think that between the two the establishment would prefer Trump, if they can get him to TONE IT DOWN. If they offer help and he is willing to listen then he might be their guy. Nobody is watching the left flank. We are vulnerable. But then I am probably giving the “establishment” Republicans much more credit than they have shown to deserve.

        • Florida is winner take all but you can win with less than 50%…this shows how split the vote would be at convention.

          On rule 40….I can see it both ways to an extent. Set the bar too high…no one gets it. Set the bar low and everyone gets it….result is the same….except for those that do not even win a single state.

          You say ” If party players start calling for Kasich and Rubio to drop out after next week then we will know they have decided to accept Cruz, or Trump. If not then we will know they are laying their last hope on the Convention.” Absolutely. THat was one of the points I was trying to make.

          You say “However, I do not think these power hungry rats are stupid enough to destroy their future altogether. If they get carried away they will lose power for a decade or more. That is why I don’t think they will play games that are to obviously obnoxious.” LOL….are you willing to bet on this?

          Anyway….great discussions…..we shall see.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            d13

            Double or nothing on that Steak Dinner you owe me??

            • That is correct…..I forgot about the steak dinner…..I need to pay my debts. You got a good steakhouse close by?

              However, not double or nothing on a steak dinner……like a grizzled old sergeant told me one time in the jungles when I thought common sense would prevail….he said, ” Son…you willing to bet your life on that?” Changed my perspective some….never forgot it, as you can see. So…..willing to bet your life on that? Willing to bet your life on the fact that they will not cut off their nose to spite their face?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                d13thecolonel

                Good morning Sir.

                Re: The steak dinner. The ball is in my court. If you recall the winner had to travel to the losers location. Best steak house in these parts is my house. So if you ever get up here we will fire up the BBQ and do a little golf hunting.

                Nice come back. These dopes are capable of anything so I think I may have to decline that bet. I am 90% there but not 100%.

  8. gmanfortruth says:

    I still can’t understand all this talk about who can’t win the general election. It seems it’s far more opinion, or just parroting the MSM, because if nothing else, we should have learned that polls don’t mean squat. Case in point, prior to the actual election season beginning, it seemed that every poll out there showed Jeb Bush as the front runner, and by many points. Those polls were useless, even the ones right before Trump jumped in the race. If this “can’t win” stuff is based on polls, it seems that another lesson has been ignored. That would be two lessons in just 15 months that have been completely ignored. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse…..

    On the great conversation between JAC and D13. That was some fun reading. My take on the convention, should no one get enough delegates. If the establishment cronies do ANYTHING that looks like a fix, it will not go unnoticed and there may be a huge price to pay. Does that mean they won’t try? It will be fun to watch. If they do, I’m curious as to how ya’ll are going to perceive it.

    Tonight is another debate. I’m hoping the attack dogs keep teaming up on Trump as they have been.

    I don’t see how Clinton could beat anybody in the general election. Outside of the hardcore supporters, I see many Democrats staying home. Just like Republican voters did in 2012.

    • Do not under estimate the Clinton machine on turning out the minority vote. She will do the Bernie Sanders thing and promise the moon….and the lemmings will respond.

    • Parroting the man? Come now, Gman……read the Republican convention rules…..then apply it to the current issue. Question for you…sinc eFlorida is a winner take all….and if Trump wins Florida…..if Rubio stays in the race…..what other explanation is there? Same question for Kaisich in Ohio.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Parroting the MSM, Colonel. That is what they have all been saying, X can’t beat Y and Y can’t beat Z. There are far too many things that could occur between now and election day to make these assumptions. To me, it’s a silly comment with no basis of fact. What I’m not surprised at is how many people are talking about jumping to the other boat should Trump win. What was it that some said in 2012, not voting is a vote for Obama? Is was it, not voting was a vote for Romney? Regardless, a vote for Clinton is indeed a vote for Clinton. Those who are threatening to jump ship say’s a great deal about the political class, their only in it for their own ass. This is exactly how many of us see politics at the Federal level, they don’t give a rats ass about the average American.

        But the big question beckons….will it really make one lick of difference? 2014 sure didn’t.

  9. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.trunews.com/rubio-blasts-cruz-for-dirty-tricks-in-hawaii/

    Cruz’s campaign manager has a history of this. This is TWICE now. Once a snake, always a snake.

  10. This is interesting on an informational level-Funny how in almost all of them the lowest performing candidate won the contested battle. Guess the party elites have believed they knew better than us peons since the very beginning.

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/10/brokered-gop-conventions-often-produce-a-winning-president/#disqus_thread

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      If you think about it, much of our political system was created to quench or dampen the fires of passion by the general public. It was in fact a stated reason for the Senates structure in the Constitution.

      • I agree-but-I believe it was meant to stop people from going off half cocked-to slow down the process and to bring about more discussion-not to override the peoples voices. That isn’t, in my opinion what is happening-the senate is stopping debate these days.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          You are witnessing what a monopoly on elections look like. I have terms like “being loyal to the party” and “X is not a conservative” Blah blah. It will be very, very interesting to see how all of this plays out. The Party elite are not happy with Trump, so what will they do? Have you noticed how the Democrats have basically crowned Clinton? In both cases, the people have no real voice. In the end, the establishment elite will determine who you get to chose from, and to them, who wins don’t matter one wit, they are bought and paid for. If they cross the line……..they get to join JFK.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          They are essentially the same thing. Emotion will move people to make bad choices. Stopping them and forcing further discussion and debate cools the flames. At least where some reason can be mixed with that emotion.

          Now notice in the examples it was not some minority that wins the day by overthrowing the majority. What happened was they started talking, debating, arguing and pretty soon cooler heads prevailed. For them to prevail that majority had to “change its mind” and agree to the other person.

          I was thinking of something similar the other day but had not put it in the context of a “convention”. What if, for example, that at the end of the primary season there was one more singular day of voting for all states. How often would those that voted for X the first time change their vote to Y near the end.

          We discover a lot of these people during the election process. The primaries are flawed in that many of us are forced to choose before the full vetting is done.

          So look at the Convention in a similar light. On the other hand there is a weakness in this comparison. That is how the delegates are selected.

          There is also the concept you expressed that should be reviewed. That is whether “we” actually should have a say in the nominees. It is a “political party” after all that is selecting THEIR candidate.

          What we see in this process is the collision of Republican vs. Democracy forms of governance.

          As I have stated before, the entire process is seriously flawed IF, again IF we want to select people from among us to represent us in Govt. To break up the political elite that has developed.

  11. Interesting confrontation on the Fox Business Channel…..I like Varney. However, he had a strong Democratic pundit on as a guest. The subject was fracking and natural gas and the impact on the poor. Varney posted figures concerning fracking and natural gas and how it has actually led to 30% lower energy prices to the poor in that natural gas is the lowest it has been in 30 years. ( I can attest to that as our family is a producer of natural gas. Prices are at historical lows ) However, the poor have benefitted greatly on this. Clinton and Bernie Sanders, both, want to BAN all fracking for any natural resources and fossil fuels. Varney asked the question of why would the Democrats be against lower prices that benefit the poor? The pundit says, and this ain’t no joke, we are more worried about the earth than we are about the poor……then this pundit hesitated and says….no, that is not what I meant, then corrected herself to say…we are on a better position than the poor to determine the best solution to long term costs. ( translation: we know better than the masses )…Varney’s response was that the poor are worried about freezing to death tomorrow and not 50 years from now on a non proven hunch. Varney then posted the numbers on wind energy and solar energy and how much more expensive that is than the natural gas, to which the pundit says…( and this is really true) it won’t be when Clinton or Sanders gets elected and the tax on fossil fuels will be raised to the point that wind and solar will be less expensive.

    Talk about in your face………..this is no shock to me but it is in your face.

  12. gmanfortruth says:
  13. gmanfortruth says:

    It’s being reported that over 46,000 Democrats have changed parties to vote for Trump. That doesn’t really surprise me, as a lot of “Democrats” are far closer to conservatives than Liberals.

    I have not heard of reports going the other way, except for the political elite who I mentioned before.

    As I have mentioned before, jobs will win votes and only one person has stated what most of us already know, our trade deals suck. Perot’s prediction came true about NAFTA. The politicians never did get it and still don’t.

    • I have to wonder how many of those people actually intend to vote for Trump in the general.

  14. gmanfortruth says:

    Something that nobody is talking about. All the Republican Convention rules EXPIRE the day before the convention and must be re-approved by the rules committee prior to the convention. 112 people will make these rules going forward.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Where did you come up with this latest theory?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        A lawyer on a radio program. But this blurb from Wikipedia seems to confirm it:

        The Republican National Convention (RNC) is the presidential nominating convention of the Republican Party of the United States. Convened by the Republican National Committee, the stated purpose of the convocation is to nominate an official candidate in an upcoming U.S. presidential election, and to adopt the party platform and rules for the election cycle.

        The election cycle begins when the Convention convenes, that means the rules are all reaffirmed, as the lawyer explained. That sounds rational, considering how Romneys crew made so many changes in 2012: http://www.rightsidenews.com/us/politics/rules-at-the-2016-republican-national-convention/

        Things can change how the convention works. That is unquestionable.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          OK, lets clean up the meaning of this. The rules do not “expire”. But yes, at a minimum they must be “reaffirmed”, or “changed and approved”.

          Under the RNC rules there is a Committee of the Convention Rules and Order. This committee’s job is to review the existing rules and propose a “report” to the convention on proposed changes to those rules. This committee ONLY deals with the rules governing the convention.

          If the Committee made no changes then the rules of today would be the rules of the convention. So technically they do not “expire”. But the Convention would vote to affirm continuing the old rules or the new rules. Amendments to the Committee’s proposals is also allowed and will be voted on.

          One of the other Committees is that on the “Platform”. This committee also proposes its report to the Convention for approval. Again, amendments by the Convention are allowed.

          I raised the question to you because it seemed you are trying to make out a potential conspiracy or manipulation. This procedure has existed for a very long time.

          The “Rules” once adopted become the rules of the current convention and the “temporary” rules for the following convention.

          For those who want to create conspiracy around this, realize that each of the Convention Committees is comprised of representatives from EVERY STATE.

          Now just so you don’t feel completely at ease, let me provide you with an actual rule that is better suited to the conspiracies you post here often. It is Rule 37 (e):

          “(e) If the Republican National Committee determines that the national convention cannot convene or is unable to conduct its business either within the convention site or within the convention city, then and only then, the roll call for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall be allowed to be conducted according to procedures authorized by the Republican National Committee.”

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I claimed no conspiracy at all. Your dealing in semantics, and I guess i am too, but none the less, there is no doubting what happened before the 2012 convention and how things changed. Based on that, today’s rules for the convention and selection of the Republican candidate for the Presidency can change and do so drastically. Rather than argue the point, let’s keep these comments in mind and see what happens come July. I simply don’t see the establishment allowing Trump to get the nomination, UNLESS, he gets the needed delegates before the convention. These are interesting times. What happens this year is going to be very telling as to the legitimacy of our elections. The illusion of choice may turn out to be a proven conspiracy rather than just a theory.

  15. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.leagueofpower.com/surveys/donald_trump/stats.html

    Some online poll results )the poll is ongoing).

  16. Question-If this goes to a convention and you feel like they stole it from the legit winner or your guy just doesn’t win-are you gonna sit it out or vote for the republican. I’ve gotta say with the SC seat open and the probability that several more will be vacated soon-my first instinct is to sit it out-but when I think about it-a liberal supreme court scares me more than another RINO.

    I also wonder how much the elite is using the SC seat vacancy in their calculations on what they can get away with.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      I am with you on the concern and torn about what to do. Normally I would NOT vote for Trump. I would vote Libertarian or write my preference on the ballot.

      But this time the stakes go beyond just the POTUS chair. Assuming of course that Ginsburg doesn’t hold out for four more years hoping a Dem will win next time.

      On the other hand, unless Trump shows me he is willing to nominate someone closer to a Cruz than a Sotomayor, I don’t see any real difference. Then again maybe even another Roberts would be better than Kagan or Sotomayor, and Ginsburg.

      Bigger question. Assuming the new POTUS does nominate someone like a Cruz, will the “establishment” led Senate allow confirmation?

      To answer your question, I doubt they are considering the SCOTUS in anything they have planned. Another question is whether Trump will graciously accept his defeat if he is beaten at the convention in an open and fair process?

      • I hate to use the Andy Jackson card because I hate Andy Jackson. But, having issued the disclaimer, we need a screamer on our side.

        We have listened to the most incredible balderdash over the years from old one eye Reid and Nancy (crazy as a loon) Pelosi and we have stood still and taken it. We have even pretended that they are sane and patriotic. We ignore Harry’s boys on “K” Street and Nancy’s hotels, resorts, vineyards and canneries being not only non-union but anti union.

        It is time for a big mouth, a VERY BIG MOUTH! Screw decorum, tell it like it is. If they fight nominations, take it to them. I don’t care if they are Dems or Republicans, call them out. Let’s do our own Gunfight at the OK corral and be the Earps. Take every advantage we can. Sawed off double barrel to a Single Action Army.

        It was Jefferson who called for a revolution every twenty year or so to keep the folks honest. It is long past due. With the exceptions of Reagan and Gingrich, the Republican Party has insisted on coming to a gun fight with a baseball bat, not even a knife. It is time to bring a howitzer. If there is collateral damage to the go-along get-along set, Graham, McCain, McConnell, Ryan and their ilk, so be it!

  17. With these numbers-it makes anyone getting enough votes seem unlikely

    http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/09/heres-the-math-on-why-obsessing-over-florida-makes-no-sense/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      That is correct, especially since many after 3/15 go back to some kind of proportional allocation. Unless there are ONLY TWO candidates. That greatly increases the chances of one of them winning outright.

      One comment on the article: This is a very misleading; “Yes, Florida is important, but it makes no sense to sacrifice 259 delegates to Trump for the remote possibility that Rubio might be able to win 99 delegates in Florida.” All 259 would not be sacrificed if Rubio stays in. The real question is whether Trump will get more than the 99 if Rubio does win Florida but Trump wins the others with a “proportion”.

      The author is assuming that Rubio dropping out will allow Cruz to win a majority in the other states. That is not a realistic outcome at this point in time. And of course Kasich is also part of the dilution. It is not all Rubio.

      Besides, the author missed the point. Rubio is not staying in to “knock Trump out”. He and Kasich are staying in to force a brokered convention.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      Just to add to your point about how hard this is going to be to get to the magic number.

      Illinois w/ 69 delegates. The primary will select three delegates for each Cong. District, each delegate identifies which POTUS candidate they will support. A total of 54 delegates will be selected by this method. I could not find out how the three are selected, that is are they the top three vote getters? Or if multiple delegates are allowed for each candidate. In other words, it is not clear to me that a candidate can win more than one delegate per district.

      If not then the max. one could win is 18 delegates in the District count.

      Now, the remaining 12 at large plus 3 RNC members are bound to the winner at the State level. I assume this means the candidate with the most Congress. District wins.

      Under this scenario the max delegates possible is no 69 but 30.

      North Carolina w/72 delegates. A state wide vote will determine the allocation of 39 delegates, 3 per Cong. District (13 Districts). The Districts will be apportioned per the State wide vote total. I assume this means all three delegates go with the number of districts allocated. So winning half the districts would get you 7 districts X 3 per Dist = 21 delegates, out of 39.

      There are 33 at large which will be allocated per the State election outcome and another 3 at large given to the State winner.

      So again, assume Trump gets half. He gets the 21 Dist. delegates + 16 or 17 of the at large + 3 at large = 40 or 41 out of the 72 possible.

      Now lets review the article attached to the table. I don’t see Rubio staying in for Illinois or N. Carolina affecting Trump in anyway directly. He will get the percentage he gets. It most likely will affect Cruz as his percentage will be smaller. ASSUMING all of Rubio’s votes go to Cruz. Which may not be reality.

      This is more consistent with my prior thoughts. That is Rubio needs to get out if Cruz is to have a chance of beating Trump before the convention.

      Cruz was hoping to knock Rubio out by either winning or helping Trump win Florida. But if Rubio does not get out, and neither does Kasich, we are headed to a Convention fight.

      If both get out it should be decided before the convention. But that is not a certainty either. The odds are in Trumps favor to win outright. Cruz has a path but it is very narrow and not brightly lit.

      • I need an aspirin.

        I think Rubio is going to lose Florida and get out-or he might get out before depending on how tonight’s debate goes. I’m hoping for the latter.

        Trump definitely has the advantage at this point. But a convention is looking more and more likely if Rubio and Kasich don’t get out real soon-I read somewhere that there was only 7 winner take all states left. It remains to be seen where all these votes will go-we won’t know that until it happens. But I did read the other day some polling that said Cruz would get Rubio’s votes- 3 to 1. And I just can’t see Kasich’s votes going to Trump.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          Myself………. I am heading to the cabinet for a glass of 7 Devils Bourbon and then to cook dinner.

          Just got done with 1 1/2 mile walk in the freezing air………..needed to clear my head after all this.

          Guess it can all be summed up with …………….. boy, didn’t see that coming!!

          Keep the faith my dear and keep fighting the good fight. Some day it might help to reconstruct this nation we love so much.

          • Hmmm, having a bourbon while I watch the debates-I wonder whether that would relax me or make it more likely I’ll scream at the TV. I think I’ll find out. Enjoy!

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I hope the bickering nonsense stops. Deal with the issues. I doubt CNN will do that, they don’t want ANY of the Republicans to win.

              • I think you got your wish-very little bickering.

                Although, contrary to the media-I didn’t think the last debate was a matter of bickering-I think the attacks on Trump were legit-and useful in showing just how little Trump actually says about any issue and just how easy it is to rattle him. It was in the days after the debate where Rubio got carried away and got into the personal, silly attacks on Trump-but why people got upset with him, beats me, he was just being a caricature of Trump.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Me…I have zero will power on my pour if I have a bottle at home. If I go out I limit the drink to one double, period. Then it stays special.

                To d13……I use bourbon soaked oak when I do any smoking of meats. Imparts a nice smooth flavor.

            • Bourbon!? No no no – I’m watching with a nice scotch!

              Hope everyone has been doing well! Haven’t posted in awhile but I do check in from time to time to check in on you crazy guys!

              • Well, at least you have good taste in alcohol… 🙂

              • I have good taste, period.

              • I’m sure you have wonderful taste in everything, except politicians and Alcohol-Scotch is awful.

              • Dunno……a good smooth scotch is pretty tasty….and soothing…….BUT a great Bourbon is great for marinating steaks.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                A nice 16 year old scotch from Islay. Either Lagavulin or Laphroig

              • Ah, very good guess – Lagavulin 16 is my scotch of choice! With Scotch, I want it to smell like the sea is on fire!

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                The peat used to “smoke” the grain, is 100% spindrift from the sea. Seaweed. They’ve done bore samples in the bogs on Islay and there is no wood, stumps, heather and all the other stuff you find in the flavors of the mainland scotches. Most of the bars and restaurants around here will not carry those two. They sit on the shelf unless I come in. While I was teaching in the UK, the place I stayed at had a very serious row of scotches in the bar. The one that ran out most frequently was Lagavulin. Being that it was a school and the “students” were there to learn and not party they put the bar down at 10PM.
                Many times during a week, I came in after midnight after teaching elsewhere. The concierge would open up the bar for me, as long as I went up to my turret or to the kitchen to eat dinner.

              • Easy to find Lagavulin and Laphroiag around here though, especially with Lagavulin, a pour can cost a pretty penny. I tend not to get it while out and instead enjoy at home.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        When I read this, all could think of as the tax codes and what a complete cluster….they are and how they screw people. Isn’t it time that we demand a simple damn election? Put them all out there and let the people chose who they want. You have given a great example as to why people should NO LONGER accept the political parties, it’s a sham.

  18. Cruz finally got a Senate endorsement.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      Hope he doesn’t get very many. They will destroy his chances. 🙂

      Looked up Rule 38 after our discussion. I think you were misunderstanding its meaning.

      It does not prevent a State from voting unanimously, it only prevents the State Delegation Representative from IMPOSING a unanimous vote on the delegates, by majority vote. Interestingly the rule compels delegates to ignore State Laws, if one should try to dictated a “unit rule” on party delegates. There are some other rules that disallow conflicting State Laws as well. Interesting how they know they can dictate rules without consideration for State Laws.

      RULE NO. 38
      Unit Rule
      No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule. A “unit rule” prohibited by this section means a rule or law under which a delegation at the national convention casts its entire vote as a unit as determined by a majority vote of the delegation.

      So per your original point, this does not force a split but it does allow a split to continue as long as the delegates are committed.

  19. I know it’s early-but this is new, normally by this time Trump is already wayyyy in the lead.
    Very curious what it’ll be in the morning-it does look like most people on Drudge anyway have decided it is a two man race.

    **DRUDGE POLL** WHO WON THE 12TH REPUBLICAN DEBATE ’16?
    TRUMP 46.87% (110,672 votes)

    CRUZ 46.74% (110,358 votes)

    RUBIO 3.49% (8,252 votes)

    KASICH 2.9% (6,839 votes)

    Total Votes: 236,121

    • Well this is odd-thought I’d check and see if anything had changed and I found this.

      **DRUDGE POLL** WHO WON THE 12TH REPUBLICAN DEBATE ’16?
      TRUMP 57.76% (111,170 votes)

      CRUZ 34.3% (66,021 votes)

      RUBIO 4.34% (8,349 votes)

      KASICH 3.6% (6,931 votes)

      Total Votes: 192,471
      Return To Poll

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Drudge poll as of now.

        TRUMP 66.64% (174,795 votes)
        CRUZ 22.82% (59,855 votes)
        RUBIO 5.67% (14,872 votes)
        KASICH 4.87% (12,785 votes)

        P.S. I still think Cruz is a snake.

  20. gmanfortruth says:

    Finally, a decent debate without all the childish nonsense, AS I saw it, I thought Kasich blew when he went all NEOCON and wanted wars with everyone again. The other 3 had some good moments and limited their bad ones. Some other points:

    Trump was low keyed and kept it that way. I like that he is keeping the Muslim issue open for debate. The Democrats don’t want that conversation, but the issues in Europe are still ongoing. I still remember all of those folks in the Middle East celebrating after 911 too.

    Rubio did well, and spoke like a polished politician. His moment was when he spoke about Cuba.

    Cruz, the only one that seemed to head into the childish side. He blew it with me on the trade issue. Somehow he thinks his “tax” plan won’t be paid for by the people but Trump’s “Tariff” plan will. Obviously Cruz blew that idea because we all know better. His moment was when he asked the cameras to turn around, taking a page from Trump and Christie.

    In order Trump and Rubio tied for the win, Cruz 3rd but not much better than Kasich. If not for Kasich’s desire to get our military in action I would really like him. This could move Trump closer in Ohio. I don’t think Rubio has a shot in Florida, but should still beat Cruz and Kasich.

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/wounded-warrior-project-execs-fired/155505

    I mentioned this last year about this time, only to be refuted. You know who you are, enjoy your crow breakfast 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      No surprise that you don’t recall the nature of the discussion. You should be asking why the Board took so long to reign in the spending of the executives.

    • Not ready for the crow yet……why did the board take so long to fire everybody?

    • Gman…..I stand by the organization because I know the work they actually do….executives get stupid as the execs did with Red Cross, Salvation Army, Planned PArenthood, etc…So, with this correction, and the notoriety, I think that it will straighten out.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I do as well Colonel. As to the question as to what took the board so long, that’s a good question, maybe the exposure had something to do with it. Regardless, this was exposed around this time last year and I believe was blown off as conspiracy theory.

        The organization may survive and after a time continue to do good. But they will have lost lots of donations until trust is regained.

        @JAC, I do recall the link I posted, basically saying that les than 50% of donations were being used for veteran’s, you threw out your bullshit flag and claimed it was all the nice commercials and such they were putting out and the need to do so. Well, enjoy your crow.

  22. gmanfortruth says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      I am calling BS on this claim along with all the others floating around today claiming that Lynch is exploring options to prosecute climate deniers.

      Even if this were true, her testimony yesterday was not the smoking gun everyone is claiming. These claims are in fact parsing of her words, sweating out meaning where obviously none was intended or expressed.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I have read numerous articles on this very subject. Lynch was investigating using similar avenues as they did with the tobacco industry and the civil cases that netted lots of b
        loot that was supposedly given to people who suffered from the false advertising claiming their product was safe. I have yet to meet a single person who actually received any of that money, but supposedly the tobacco companies paid. Hmm, I think I will have to look into that closer, much closer. You can pick up your flag now, it’s OK.

  23. I think all of you are missing the trade issue. I think most do not understand the economic impact that it is having and I know how to number crunch as good as anybody and I have been financially involved in trade issues through stock portfolios and have been watching the manipulations of currencies a very long time.

    Do not fear a trade war….if it happens. I am not sure that it will happen. If I was, I would be divesting in the overseas companies that I am in….but I would expect to take a substantial hit ( in value) if there is a positive movement to equalize trade. I would expect to take at least a 30% hit for a short time and then watch it explode upwards. ”

    My opinion, of course, and opinions are like belly buttons….everyone has one…….except perhaps Adam and Eve….I wonder if they had one?

  24. Carson for VP or Carson for Health and Human Resources or Carson for Surgeon General?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I like Carson’s as some sort of advisory role. Chief of Staff maybe. Great way to offset the personality issues that people seem so concerned about with Trump.

  25. As previously reported, I like to watch Fox Business….much more accurate than CNN Business, Bloomberg, and Forbes. I was watching an interesting debate between pundits on several issues about trade and financial responsibility. They were asked some specific questions. So, I will ask a couple of those questions here….

    1) Define the term “greedy” and “maximize profits”.

    2) Is America the same as a corporation? If not, why not?

    3) If America is the same as a corporation, is there any reason that it cannot be run in a profit/loss with the same understanding that its investors ( we, the people ) must be satisfied in the return?

    I think I will stop here…I can already hear heads gearing up for explosion.

    • I forgot one interesting question, similar to one I posted on this site. Each pundit was asked this question….. ( which relates to item one above )……If you were going to hire someone to run your company or your finances, would you hire Cruz or would you hire Trump or would you hire Clinton or would you hire Sanders?..if you were going to make investements……same question.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        None of the above.

        But if outrageous returns are your goal you would have to pick Clinton. Her/HIs return on equity is almost infinite.

        In Trump’s interview on Fox, about cutting the Fed. expense side of the budget. “What are you going to do to reduce entitlements?” Trump: “Nothing, I don’t want to touch entitlements”.

        He also said he like the “penny plan” but he would “increase” military spending while making bigger cuts elsewhere. Where? Not with entitlements, but someplace else.

        • Trump’s position on the penny plan has changed substantially but that is not the reason for my questions….just comparing answers from a variety of sources….both on the blog, TV pundits, and private. I am interested in the variety of answers, if any.

          Interesting viewpoint you have on Clinton.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            d13

            I just threw in the Trump stuff to save making another separate post. I found it interesting since he was claiming he would balance the budget. Yet, he won’t touch entitlements.

            For the record, I think our military expenditure is high enough, if not to high. It is simply spent on the wrong things.

            • Ahaa! Spent on the wrong things. Now we’re getting somewhere. That’s exactly what Trump has been saying. He’s not going to touch entitlements, as in reduce or eliminate them. He’s mentioned plenty about sifting through the waste and fraud of the programs. He’s talked about eliminated the DoE. About eliminating duplicate agencies. About eliminating wasteful spending. But now you want to know about where. I thought you posted some months ago that details don’t matter at this point. Put your goals out there and let the details follow. But when Trump says it…..

              I’m all for keeping Federal revenue at the same level for the time being, as long as they simultaneously sift thru and do lots of eliminating. Then don’t make any new unnecessary spending. Stop the baseline budget game. I don’t believe, not for a second, that we have anywhere near a correct number for our debt. When they can’t even make a budget…probably because they know all their numbers are garbage…how are we to believe that our debt is too big to handle. Prove it!

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Anita

                Yes, I did say specifics don’t matter, because they don’t. That is details about the how.

                But details about WHAT are critical. So to claim you will balance the budget then state that you will increase military and only deal with fraud in entitlements is not being serious about balancing the budget. Unless you intend to make up the difference with TAX INCREASES.

                If Trump understood the general numbers and legal structures he would know this. He offered the more details and they do not add up. So is he just another politician making empty promises?

                If revenue is frozen you will need to cut the expense side by almost ONE TRILLION dollars per year. That is assuming that interest rates remain at near zero. Baseline or no baseline does not matter. That is just a rhetorical argument for propaganda.

                Prove it? Seriously, do you have any doubt our national debt is “too big to handle”? Calculate the annual payment needed to pay off a 70 Trillion dollar debt over say 50 years at a 3% interest rate. Hint: The answer is 2.72 TRILLION per year.

                So you have about 2.5 trillion per year in revenue and the amount needed to pay off the smallest debt number in print is 2.72 trillion per year. This is with ZERO money for anything else.

                David Stockman and the ex-Comptroller of the US put the total debt over the next 50 years at about 120 trillion.

              • I have no doubt the comptroller used a 120T number. And I say prove it. With garbage numbers, it’s impossible to give an accurate number.

                You twisted what I said a bit, too. Or you just added on something that I didn’t mention…increase military. I remember hearing Trump calling out the Pentagon for wasteful spending…ordering missles and things not based on need but on special interests. About a new fighter jet (actually hundreds) that carries a hefty price tag and will be obsolete in short order. He wants to overhaul the pentagon and put money to better use. A play right from the Paul handbook.

                But you mentioned increase military, and deal with fraud in the entitlements…first of all as though those are not worthy goals, but also like that’s all he thinks is needed…and then you jump to increase taxes. I mean, give the guy a break. He’s advocated sifting through every government agency to find abuse and wasteful spending. He’s advocated eliminating departments and getting the IRS in check. Is it all empty promises? Who knows. But you need to conceed that ‘who knows’ with the rest of them too. It seems like no plan suits you. Nothing will get the job done. And if you want to get SOMETHING done, then you’re pragmatic, as though that’s a bad word. Very frustrating.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Anita

                You are correct in one thing. I DO NOT like any of their plans regarding the budget, deficit and debt.

                Because the truth is what I presented to you and none of them, including Trump, address this reality.

                Trump is the one who said he was going to “increase” the military spending. I didn’t create that from thin air.

                Given the numbers nobody can claim they are going to balance the budget by cutting waste, fraud and abuse and making cuts to minor agencies.

                Curious how you played the typical leftist trick of claiming I don’t care about these just because I stated they are not enough in and of themselves.

                You want Trump that is up to you. But don’t try to defend the guy with stuff that isn’t real. He is all talk at this point and his talk sounds just like the others to me. In fact if you listen to his actual words he is more establishment in his policies than Jeb Bush or Kasich. Well maybe him and Kasich are about even.

                You are betting on a roll of the dice. You have your money on 12 the hard way. Your bet is based on nothing more that you do not want to see any other number rolled. I wish you luck with that, seriously. I hope your crap shoot works out for all of us.

                But don’t ask me to pretend this guy is something he is not or is promising things he is not. You want more of the Govt. we have then that is your choice. I am sure Mr. Trump will be happy to give it to you.

                If you are happy just trimming around the edges then please to don’t complain when it become obvious this is not creating any real change.

                If you honestly believe he is going to change things then tell me, are you going to support Trump taking unilateral action when Congress does not go along with his plans??? Will your response to his actions be the same as they were when Obama tried to bypass Congress??

              • gmanfortruth says:

                And in return JAC you offer a politician, who, based on every other politician will do absolutely nothing different than his/her than those before them. Then you wonder why people ain’t buying your status quo bullshit no more. Anita, vote for Trump and stand tall! JAC’s method has proven a complete failure, he just won’t accept that reality yet. .

              • JAC. SMH! Do you really think I’m pulling leftist tricks on you? I don’t have that in me. Think what you want, but that was not my intention. You have issues with Trump, That’s fine. But he certainly didn’t get us here, and his plan seems just as good as the next.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Anita

                I did not say you played the trick “intentionally”. I said it was curious you used that trick. It is seriously flawed logic. A deliberate ruse in an argument. A strawman, in effect.

                Since you did use it I must assume it was an instinctive reaction. It tells me that you have not done the work needed to keep this kind of stuff from seeping into your thinking or rhetoric. So to say you are not capable is not being truthful with yourself. You just did it. So you are capable. Maybe not intentionally but certainly capable.

                Now explain SMH please. Not getting that one.

                Trump did in fact get us here. Not as an elected official but as a member of the elite who played the game. Politicians are not the only ones in that group. Trump himself admitted this the other day. “I have been part of the establishment and I played the game very well. But I think it is wrong and now I want to change it.” Of his participation there should be no doubt or argument.

                The question is whether he really got religion or is just faking it. Maybe his conversion to anti-cronyism is real. Just don’t pretend or try to tell me the question about him is not legit.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      2) Is America the same as a corporation? If not, why not?

      I have read some quite extensive theories on this subject. Based on that, yes, the US is a corporation. The problem is that the people are not the shareholders, they are the assets. I’m in the camp we should be run like a business. Lot’s of waste and incompetency that could be removed if done so. If any of the many alphabet agencies are not specifically written in the Constitution, they would be shut down and those responsibilities would fall to the States where they always belonged. No more deficit spending. Stop taking income taxes from the workers, limit it to what companies already pay per employee. Trade should necessarily be equal, or as equal as possible. I would make some exceptions for food.

      I agree with Trump on entitlements. But, I only consider Social Security and Medicare as entitlements. I do not consider welfare or food stamps as entitlements. They have been wrongly clumped together by the Left to protect their welfare schemes. I think those country’s we protect should pay more for that protection. I have no problem with a trade wars, we will survive. If we could bring back half of our industrial power that we have lost, then the entitlements won’t need to be touched, which is why I’m in the Trump camp on both issues.

      Obamacare needs rescinded and NOT replaced. Go free market and let insurance companies compete in any State. Once this takes off, The Fed’s should do away with Medicare as we know it and privatize it. Use the taxes taken from the working people to pay for it, rather than the government incompetence we have now.

      Social Security, because of the enormity, would take an article to discuss, but it can be eliminated with the right plan. At the least, it can be a State issue.

      WE the people need to be treated like investors, not assets. There in lies the problem as I see it.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        This would take a businessman or women to do any/all of this. Politicians care about the next election. Trump is the perfect candidate. He’s not bought and paid for. He won’t worry about the next election and he don’t need the money. A lot could be done in 4 years. Too bad the politicians in Congress will never do shit to fix anything. There is where the real problem lies. 535 bought and paid for puppets.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      I was going to stay out of this but what the heck. You deserve some answers.

      1) Define the term “greedy” and “maximize profits”. : Greed = desire for more than you have. Maximize profits = self explanatory, unless we are going to redefine “profits”.

      2) Is America the same as a corporation? If not, why not? NO. It is not a corporation nor is it the “same as” a corporation. And that applies to America the nation or the Govt of that nation. Why not? = No charter of incorporation, no board structure, no share holders or actual “owners”. Which is why I always call BS on people who claim that “we” own federal lands. No “we” don’t. The US GOVT. owns those lands as a trustee for the benefit of the people. This last part has been lost as it was primarily a “cultural” viewpoint and not codified in the statutes. But there is considerable law supporting the concept.

      3) If America is the same as a corporation, is there any reason that it cannot be run in a profit/loss with the same understanding that its investors ( we, the people ) must be satisfied in the return?: The US Govt. can run a profit or loss but it should run even or profit. Its lack of Corporate status has no bearing on this point. It can and should run at break even or profit annually.

      I find the questions skirting dangerously close to rationalizing the mercantilist system which our founding fathers fought against, ie. Hudson Bay Company, East India Company, etc.

      While the USA is not a corporation itself I thought little history on US corporations might be of interest for everyone:

      http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/

      • OK JAC…..I have to get exact with you..you are correct in that it is not a corporation by the strict sense of the word. You are using corporation in the IRS context and I was using it metaphorically.

        It is interesting in your definition of greed…..I want more than I need and I want more than I have….so I guess that makes me greedy. In business, I want to maximize my profits in any manner that I can, provided it is done legally. So, I presume that you see greed and maximize profits as the same…..since maximizing profits means getting more than you need and more than you currently have….Very interesting and not what I expected…but thank you for the answer. You were somewhat different than the pundits….and that is a good thing. 🙂

        • AS to mercantilist…..nah…never even crossed my mind. I do see the country as no different than a corporation in the sense that it should run at a profit or even….that is the only similarity.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            d13

            I did not mean you. I meant the nature of the questions Fox Business was asking.

            Even the “conceptual” or “metaphorical” comparison of a Nation State, ie. Govt, as a corporation smacks of mercantilism of the 1600 to 1800’s.

            While I believe a Govt. should break even or build slight savings, I do not think it is the purpose of govt.. to make money. Its purpose is to provide those services which we accept as being better provided by govt. Usually that means there is little profit to be had, or at least so little on a “per unit” basis it justifies centralization. Or in BF’s words, those things we are unwilling to pay the true cost of getting.

            A better question would be if one agrees with Coolidge. “The business of America is business.” In this sense I would largely agree. IF, Govt’s role in that equation is to “do no harm” and “do the least possible”.

            I am surprised that you are surprised about my definition of greed and profit. 🙂

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              If my history hasn’t totally been forgotten…..weren’t most if not all of the original “colonies” business enterprises? They got their land grant from the king, but the rest was mostly private investors and maybe including the king.

  26. JAC….I have to do some research on his complete stance…..I wonder if his comment on not touching entitlements included a complete hands off and not eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    Anita

    The reason that our TOTAL national debt is difficult to “specifically” identify is because most of it is “unfunded liabilities”. These can change annually as the economy changes or if demographics suddenly change. Then of course there are the new laws and “benefits” granted by Congress. These raise future costs without raising needed future revenue.

    So this TOTAL debt calculation is done over each year based on the demographic predictions, estimates of future tax revenues, which are in turn based on changes to laws that happed over the prior year. Thus it changes.

    You can not simply claim ignorance, or worse complacency, because you don’t believe the numbers. The numbers are readily available from different sources. The differences between sources are miniscule when you are dealing with numbers in the TRILLIONS.

    I wonder how many people celebrating the GM bailout the other night remember that the UNON PENSIONs were passed off on the Federal Govt. Along with many other companies. That is right Michigan. You simply transferred your retirement costs from GM to my family. In addition to your Social Security and Medicare costs.

    Now a few questions to you.

    Are you willing to suffer the consequences of balancing the budget? Better yet, is it even important to you?

    How about paying down the debt?

    Does it matter to you which of the budget variables are used, revenue vs. costs, to reach balance.

    Does it matter to you how big the changes in each budget variable?

    • You know what? This is only getting me angry. Why all the questions JAC? It’s not going to change anything. And don’t forget. I own a Ford and was against the bailouts. So your slam on Michigan, why? Here is what I believe. Establish an efficient budget. Live beneath your means, so that it’s possible to pay down debt. Hell, renegotiate some debt! We’ve been nice guy for a long time. Make it happen, by any means necessary. I can live with that.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        There is no need to get angry. My questions are to understand what it is you are truly wanting to happen and what your willing to give up to get it. Since when did you get so sensitive you can’t answer questions without getting angry? What is going on?

        For example, I am willing to suffer losing all kinds of Govt. support and services, including my son’s benefits, to balance the budget AND reduce Govt. to about 10% of GDP.

        Most people either have not thought about it in those terms or have decided they want someone else’ ox gored. Either cut another program, “hands off my soc sec,” or raise the other guy’s taxes, “tax the 1%”.

        My comment about Michigan was in response to what I saw during the Michigan debates and on Dem sites before and after. I see people cheering the Govt bailouts and then arguing for accountability and “stop Corp.. welfare”. Yet these same people passed their Liabilities to our children and grandchildren. I and my family must now pay for them yet they howl about Corn subsidies. It was not aimed at you.

        Since when did you get so sensitive you can’t answer questions without getting angry? What is going on?

        • SMH= Shakin My Head, which I’ve done far too much of recently. Teens on Instagram and Twitter will only follow acronyms, so in order to communicate, you must assimilate, 😉 Figured that one was standard issue enough by now that even SAFAites could relate.

          Yes, I’m frustrated. I see Trump as very much like Charlie. I can see past the brashness to a kind hearted person underneath. I wouldn’t say I love Trump, nor do I have blind faith in him. Guarded, optimistic faith, yes. But I could see myself enjoying his company. It’s frustrating that this particular campaign has created a divide, even right down to SUFA. I’ve seen you personally in attack mode here. To the point of insults. I’m frustrated because that’s very unJAClike and it’s caused me to take a step back so I won’t give you a stroke. I’m frustrated because not only did you accuse me of leftist tactics on this thread when I did have the brass to comment, but I couldn’t even talk my way past it without you doubling down. I’m frustrated than something as simple as cutting waste and fraud causes such trouble for you. I’m frustrated because you can’t bring yourself to admit that a vote for anyone is a roll of the dice. So what are you so angry about?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Anita

            Per my memory there is only one person here who I have “attacked” or “insulted”. And that was in retaliation for insults thrown at me that were completely unjustified. If I do not then it could create the appearance that somehow I agree/condone or that the other person’s point of view is actually valid. Most of the time I ignore it. But I do respond when I think not doing so could leave fallacies and erroneous information unchallenged.

            I do not think I have done so with you. I did challenge you initially when you came up supporting Trump. But do you recall why I challenged you? It was because your support was not consistent with all your discussions about principles, ethics, etc, etc. Those things we said we wanted to take our country back. One of those was people who would stand firmly on the Constitution.

            So when someone like that comes along I see the same people shredding him and her, throwing support to Trump or just denigrating the whole lot. I have been frustrated and befuddled by this reaction. NOT angry. And this feeling or reaction is not just with SUFA. In fact It is probably less here, but it is obviously wide spread. And I am not going to just accept It without comment. I am going to investigate it, try to understand it, and then comment on what I see is the situation and how it affects our goal of restoring this country to some semblance of a Constitutional Republic based on the concepts of freedom, liberty and justice. I am going to point out when stated principles are being abandoned for “Hope and Change”.

            As for that, I have never hung my hat on any politician solving the problem, and I believe I have been fairly critical of all of them. Of course any of them involve a roll of the dice. But the odds move in your favor when that candidates has consistently stated the same values you hold. This is why my criticism of Trump has been stronger than against others. But I think it unfair to say I have not acknowledged there is risk in any candidate.

            Think back, how many times did I ask the Colonel if Cruz was “all hat and no cattle”. The Colonel’s response confirmed my trepidations, that he is part snake oil salesman himself. A political animal. But one who BELIEVES in strict constitutional limitations. Which is more important right now than the economy, middle east, planned parenthood, gay marriage, climate changes, etc, etc..

            Now let me address a very specific comment of yours about me accusing you of using leftist tactics. Well I want you to look at your own words that you have used once again: ” I’m frustrated than something as simple as cutting waste and fraud causes such trouble for you.” That is the second time you used this “tactic” or more accurately “logical fallacy”. It is in fact used by the left all the time. Do you not see the error in this argument and how it is designed to deflect and simply shut down a discussion?

            Hint: Find anywhere where I have ever said that cutting waste, fraud or abuse causes me “trouble”. You say you are not capable of such an argument, but there it is in plain view. If it is insulting for me to simply point it out then I do not know what to say.

            I would like to comment on the whole waste, fraud and abuse issue, however. This is as good a place as any. This has been a focus of every campaign I can remember. It has been the focus of decades of Govt. agency actions to crack down. Which has in fact resulted in “reductions” of problems, including people being fired. It has not been eliminated. It will never be eliminated. It even occurs in small govt. bodies, like small towns.

            BUT……. I do not think it is as big as claimed by the bureaucrats themselves. I believe it is deliberately exaggerated because it makes a great political talking point that they know everyone will support. They use it to go after their pet targets or support their pet projects. There have been several studies done showing that the marginal utility of reducing waste much farther is NEGATIVE. I am not condoning waste, fraud or abuse. When I was in Govt. I crushed this stuff and I have never like it. But I am also a rational person and it is MY TAX money that is used to stop it. Why would I spend $2 to save $1???

            With that said, my point on this issue relative to our discussion about candidates was about the MAGNITUDE of the affect this issue has on the overall issue of deficits and debt. It is peanuts and therefore anyone who hangs their hat on this as THE answer to balancing the budget is either ignorant, stupid or lying.

            Before you go off on me about the other candidates on this issue let me be clear. The rhetoric coming from all of them, except Kasich., is pure BS when it comes to budget cuts. Listing agencies to be eliminated is really just setting everyone up for a let down. These dopes need to remember a key ethical principle. “Do not make promises that you cannot guarantee you can keep.”

            I made an exception for Kasich because his promises amount to just keep doing the same thing we have been doing. For the record, Kasich was not integral to “balancing the budget” during the Clinton years. Because the budget was NEVER BALANCED. It was all smoke and mirrors. The Clintons know that, Gingrich knows that and Kasich knows that. Thus, I will not support Kasich because he is outright lying or self deluded.

            I hope all this helps clear the air. I certainly did not want to “insult” you and am sorry if you felt that way.

  28. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/marginalized-students-make-wild-demands-threaten-mobilize-if-ignored

    Maybe the self proclaimed smart people aren’t all their cracked up to be.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      The first people to take the class about racial and cultural sensativity are these students. Obviously the Black students skipped any classes about MLK thinking they knew it all. OK let the MLK building be dedicated to only black students and then file a racial discrimination suit and rename the building after some hyper bigot regardless of race, creed or color.

      Many tears ago when the students at the “STATE” University of Vermont went on a tear demanding many of these same things. Especially more racial and cultural diversity based on the demographics of the country, not the State. As long as they were the only ones out in the quad protesting and missing classes at 17K a year tuition that was fine and everyone yawned. Seeing that their protest provocted such a reaction, they went on a destructive and distruptive rampage. At that juncture Governor Snelling sent in the State Police, and arrested all the protesters. Tallied up the damages and losses to the other students and sent a bill to all the parents of those students.

      The universities of today must be a great opportunity for the pharmacuetical companies. They should really push prozac with no prescription or dose limits. Really turn them into a bunch of brain dead zombies.

  29. Let’s see…..Mitch Mconnell, Karl Rowe, Paul Ryan and others have a secret Republican meeting on an island off the coast of Georgia…….a couple of days ago……and lo and behold, organized mobs and protesters are gathering at the University of Dallas actually impeding and keeping the right of free assembly from happening at the Trump speech…to the point of violence now.

    Coincidence? I think not.

    • It is reported that the Koch boys and Soros have actually teamed up against Trump…..WHY? What are they afraid of….( sarc intended)

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Losing their grip on the power.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        The Kochs swore they were not playing in the POTUS primary. They are focusing their attention on local and state politics. They said they “might” participate in the general election.

        So what your hearing is contrary to what they have said several times this past year. Not impossible, just that it would indicate some major change in their thinking.

        I did hear that they favored Cruz, I did not read it or hear it directly.

        • I still do not think this is coincidence…..I think this is well planned and funded and it was not a use of the first amendment right of protest…to use violence and block entrances….that is violence upon the non violent

          and JAC…..you know I am a Cruz guy….but I will tell you this. I have absolutely no problem that if Trump came to Texas and a protest was organized…..I would organize my own or be part of one. I will not stand by and watch this bull shit that I am seeing…and if punches are thrown,,,I will be there. Not because I like Trump…but because I do not like the fact that no one is standing up to these bullying tactics. I think Trump was wrong to cancel…but I am sure he was asked to cancel.

          However, this will simply make the Trump crowd stronger….and I think it will make the undecided support him. What a sad display of democracy….there was nothing good about it.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            d13

            Same thing in Chicago today. Trump had to cancel a rally due to “inability to provide security for the people attending”. Those doing the threatening? YOUNG, LATINO and BLACK and a smattering of OLD WHITE PEOPLE WITH LONG HAIR.

            There may be a link but my money is still on the left. UNLESS, we now have the establishment on both sides working together….. beyond any Soros/Koch arrangement.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Actually I think it is the left wing radicals that have been behind this stuff. That is the provocations.

      Now the Trump people need to smarten up like the Tea Party did. JUST IGNORE them or call them out with “shame, shame, shame”

      But do not fall for retaliating with force. That is why they are there. To get you on camera using force against the poor X, Y or Z.

      I say all this because the left wing alt. media has been hyping this stuff for over a month. Including the claims of Hitler, fascism, etc, etc… That has been about the delay time between garbage showing up in the media and people acting stupid on the ground.

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        If you just look at the cheering that Pelosi, Reid and their ilk egging on the OWS folks and the way the riots go at any of the G8, 20 etc summits and with all the university crap, when Trump is nominated all hell will break loose and it will be with the full support of the DNC…..It will go any one of two ways. Either the majority of the people will say…this is BS and has to stop or they will be intimidated go with the panderer Hillary.

        • Dale…if Trump is nominated…and all hell does break loose….what is your position?

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            I’d have to land on the Trump side of the contest. I totally disagreed with the lawlessness OWS actions the other year and the full support the Dems gave it. I am so glad I do not have any involvement in schools today and am in the twilight of my years. Look at how Pelosi decried the “tea party” peaceful and orderly and clean protests. Saying how frightened she was. And she felt safe and secure with OWS and she’s definitely in the 1% class. I’m sure she felt real safe on the streets of san francisco during the 60’s and early 70’s with the drive by shootings by the black muslim groups initiation of killing whitey while standing waiting for a bus.

            If we go back to our young days, the protests were anti Vietnam and true civil rights Today, the kids in the name of freedom of speech and diversity are denying the same right to others and are the most mamby pamby and thin skinned crowd i’ve ever heard or. All this crap about diversity but then they want their safe space…that’s segregation to the max. As the saying goes….” I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it”…obviously the kids today do not hold to that. How do you learn if you do not hear something different than what you already know or believe.

            I’d still like Cruz but the people like flash. There is one thing to say about Trump, he certainly can not he caught in a lie about his personal life. It’s all out there in every tabloid for 30 years. If he was claiming a moral stand and an affair came out he’d be done. Like Rubio is being accused of 2 affairs out on he trail. The Dems say anything goes just admit it. I’d bet that most of his buildings have gone up with union labor given where they are. Can’t outsource the building of a casino in NJ to a chinese building company.

            • Those of us that grew up in the 60’s remember well……this movement is not the 60’s. This country has become much more polarized than the 60’s ever thought of being.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Absolutely….i look at the 60’s and and you can logically say and even over time say the protests were legitimate. how at least the civil rights movement got corrupted by the political process does not takea way from the original intent.

                People usually get along pretty well together. people like all things find their level like different gases. but as in chemistry, stirring and mixing those by themselves harmless gases can create quite an explosion. But once you get into my face and start accusing me of something I had not done trouble will follow. Most people could give a frig about who or what you are. we are more separated now as far as what people think of each other than we were at the height of Jim Crow. then it was just two, now it’s anything and everyone.

                depending on how the nation handles this and i’ll say crisis will determine if we continue as a nation based on an adhered to set of laws, or become like the Balkans. We are walking on that abyss

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Just give things a little time because Alt media people will be calling people out soon. We will find out that many of these people are paid to provoke. Some of the same people in Ferguson (who didn’t live there) were caught on film in Baltimore. I’m with D13. as much as I am against the voting process for Federal elections, good people who are simply trying to go to a rally shouldn’t be harassed by a bunch of thugs. I wouldn’t be surprised if the OathKeepers show up where the laws allow it.

        I also agree with D13, this will backfire. Those undecided or simply willing to change sides from Rubio or Kasich will do so out of dislike of the Left. This is another area I think a lot of people are fed up with, these thugs, gonna be interesting. If this crap keeps up, I may just have to vote for Trump afterall 🙂

        • I was just telling someone this morning that if this stuff keeps up I’ll be going to vote for Trump. Hell, if this keeps up, I might just show up to one of his rallies! 🙂

  30. Dale A Albrecht says:

    I have some friends who are serious liberals and anti big business etc. They have no qualms about bootlegging software for their computers. Their claim is that it’s just a big corporation. Well they’re stealing intellectual property and assets from that company, employees, shareholders and stores that sell the software. Now they have a business which is artistic. I asked them how they handle someone stealing and making copies of their artwork? Again stealing their labor and intellectual property and not forking over a residual fee or licensing agreement to reproduce their art for mass distribution. They said, that’s stealing and we’d get our lawyers and sue them. Their excuse was that they were small and Apple and Microsoft are big as an example. They use all forms of legal incorporation to protect themselves just as a large corp does…..they never seemed to grasp their hypocracy.

  31. gmanfortruth says:
  32. Like JAC, I was watching the background of the reporting. The pundits that are apparently supporting the protest are saying that these are students from the University of Chicago exercising their rights to protest. They are also saying that keeping people from getting into the assembly hall where Trump was going to speak by whatever means falls within their right of protest. However, I look at the people that were in the background and the fighting that was going on,,,,,those were not students at all. You can tell paid organizers from students very easy.

    I did notice one paid organizer that was about to destroy an American Flag…..he was quickly subdued and the flag taken away by a veteran. The majority of the protesters, as JAC pointed out, were young blacks and latinos….but the ones committing the violence were older…..30’s and 40’s. That was also apparent.

    However, it already seems to be back firing. You have a lot of people beginning to take notice and are angry at this protest. Not because of the protest but because of the attempt to stop freedom of assembly. I was a little encouraged when I saw two interviews….one from fox and one from CNN….asking actual students about the protests. Students that tacitly support Clinton and Sanders were interested to hear Trump speak…they were there to hear him and seemed upset at the protests, openly arguing with the stop trump crowd.

    However, it seems plain to me that the organizing is coming from within….I say thins because all the chanting is STOP TRUMP….using the same metaphors that the Republican establishment has been using. I still do not think it coincidental that this protest seemed to become a much larger and more violent protest since that clandestine meeting on the Georgia island.

    All of you know me,…..I am not a conspiracy person….but this one stinks. If it walks like a duck…quacks like a duck….looks like a duck….it is a duck, it is not a “water fowl”.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      It’s a duck alright. But it was good planning as well. MoveOn.org, a pro Bernie Left Wing outfit had a lot to do with the original protest idea. But, I think it was hijacked by other, professional provocateurs. The meeting you mention has significance, as Rubio said that folks should vote for Kasich in Ohio to stop Trump. Rubio is done, his comment says that loud and clear and he is most certainly establishment.

      Cruz, shot off his mouth blaming Trump for the violence. That guy is such a snake, I wouldn’t vote for that fake conservative if he was the only one on the ballot. Everything he has done prior to this campaign has been an act, he is establishment, through and through.

      So far, today’s Trump rally in Vandalia Ohio is peaceful with no protests. Isn’t this fun? 😀

      • Yes….I am disappointed in the Cruz statement…..he needs to quit being a whinny baby and get on with it…..jumping on this bandwagon is not professional.

        His voting record in Congress does not support the establishment label you are putting on him…he is definitely anti establishment but he is going to lose me as a support if he does not quit his cry baby ways…..Cruz, my man…..grow a pair…be an independent person and do not jump on the hate Trump band wagon…..stck to your principles and stock to your points.

  33. gmanfortruth says:

    Don’t mistake this for some “these kids today” rant. Hell, President Barack Obama hasn’t figured any of this out yet, and he’s older than I am. Hillary Clinton’s entire presidential campaign is predicated on her victimhood; and she’s almost older than Obama and me combined.

    If you want to experience life wandering through life demanding to be wrapped in protective bubbles at someone else’s expense, spend some quality time in one of the fine American cities, like Detroit or Baltimore, which liberals have reduced to virtual rubble piles. And if that doesn’t wake you up to the realities of the world in which the perpetually “microaggressed” are granted all the “safe spaces” money can be, then hop on a flight to Cuba or Venezuela, and talk to a dissident; if you can find one.
    http://personalliberty.com/permanent-victims/

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      During the 70’s you really heard loud and clear the concept that you are a victim. Nothing bad that has happened to you is your fault. The fact you are not rich is Trumps fault, he’s greedy. Blacks it the white guys fault and so on and so forth.

      So if Hillary is such a victim, how is it that she has been so “successful”? The college she went to is no chump school. High powered (though crooked lawyer) 1st lady, Senator, SOS and running for POTUS again. Some victim.

      Question is where is the 5th estate, Even the conservative ones. Whitewater was all about campaign money fraud. Everyone up through the LT Gov went to prison, except she and Bill and she was the lawyer. The Chinese money that flowed freely into their coffers while he was president. The guy skedadled back to China. This whole foundation thing is nothing but an influence peddling scheme and money totally co-mingled with her and bills livelyhood. Why can he hobnob with the most powerful finance people in the world at Davos and she gets off scot free a just one of us poor victimized people. Hillary has a legitimate public record as being a total incompetant and liar and completely inconsistant. Why are the R’s letting her off the hook while tearing themselves into easily digested bits of offal.

      • I even see some of this on SUFA. If I am reading people correctly, they are against Trump because he is rich and he is rich because he stomped on people and used the laws to his advantage. People cite using bankruptcy and calling it immoral and unethical, when it is legal. People cite using eminent domain to further a business enterprise or to further some sort of commercial issue when eminent domain is a perfectly legal instrument. People do not understand the mindset of business leaders ( and Trump is one whether it is accepted or not ). But being powerful and rich is somehow seen as a pariah if it does not fit one’s own definition of moral or ethical issues. Most people, 98%, are not in their own business and that makes a big difference in perceptions. For example, I have no problems with eminent domain. I have no problem with bankruptcies, etc. Why? Because they are legal tools to use to enhance one’s postition. Show me ONE person that would not use any means legally to enhance their position….especially if it meant the survival of their family.

        People do not like greed. Why? Because they cannot do it? Greed is a subjective term. JAC says greed is wanting more than you need or that you can use. I do not share his definition. I want all I can get but is that greed or is that smart planning? ( And, where JAC and I are concerned, we get along and would share a beer because we can accept each others position. He will call me a crazy Texan, and I will call him a..a..a…a…. well, I do not know what to call him right now but he isn’t all bad ). Isn’t maximize profits another term for corporate greed? BUt, I will bet that these same people, who have 401’s, have no concept of what those business’ do to enhance their position to entice 401 investment. If your 401 is growing and several of your stocks are in overseas companies that use child labor or slave labor, you don’t care because you do not see it…but you like the fact that you are growing wealth. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that if it ain’t your ox being gored, then everything else is ok.

        I hate what I am seeing out there. This is far worse than the 60’s. What the pundits and CNN and FOX and MSNBC and every single POTUS candidate should be doing…..supporting Trump at this moment and condemning the violent rallies that are suppressing free speech. But instead, most are jumping on the band wagon.

        • We need a “like” button on here. Good comment, Colonel. One of the things that has kept me reading this blog is that there is good conversation with different viewpoints and very little name calling. Everyone here seems like the type of person you could drink a beer with (or a scotch) and have a civil discussion. 🙂

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Have you ever done a “Whiskey Bout”? There were to few of us and to many bottles of whiskey to consume. We started out with some seriously good Islay scotch. and killed those. The owner of the house we were partying at was an Irishman…..so then he raided his bar and according to him, finally have some good whiskey’s. Oh the pain of it all. The one most memorable moment was a snack around 4AM. He had just butchered lambs that afternoon and the fresh liver, lightly sauted in butter, dash of salt and pepper and served between two pieces of plain white bread. It was soooo good.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Dale

              And what prey tell, did you consume to extinguish the headache the next day??

            • I learned many years ago that it was in my best interest to not ‘mix and match’ alcohol. We used to have what were called ‘hairy buffalo’ parties. Everyone would bring a bottle of their favorite spirit and dump it into a large cooler filled with fruit…had some pretty intense hang overs from them. That’s when I decided to have my own, controlled, ‘hairy buffalo’. I based the recipe off of a Long Island Iced Tea. Mixed all the liquor with Hawaiian fruit punch then cut up grapefruit, oranges, apples, and lemons. Let it set for about eight hours prior to consuming. Good stuff. The best part was eating the fruit the next day. It would reduce or at least delay any hang over symptoms. 🙂

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13thecolonel

          Whoa there pardner!!!! You have offered up a feast but I will start with the appetizer.

          “JAC says greed is wanting more than you need or that you can use.”

          I hate to be “insulting” but……….. you need a new pair of glasses, or you need to start drinking.

          I thought I was pretty clear in my definition but apparently that Texas wind has dried out your brain cells. TRY AGAIN my Texican friend.

          • JAC’s definition: Greed = desire for more than you have.

            Colonel’s paraphrase: “JAC says greed is wanting more than you need or that you can use.”

            Anita’s analysis: Most people would agree that these two sentences mean the same thing. Makes for difficult discussion. Continues on with insults, while hating to insult (also known as backdoor slam on Anita)

            I need to start drinking. Apologies Colonel, I know your shoulders are broad. Also aware that JAC is ribbing you, but still had to make my point. Also not trying to create animosity between JAC and myself, just that this was as good a place as any to make a point. Retreating back to my safe zone, rake in hand, fire blazing.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Anita

              You really see those two definitions as the same? Interesting. Also confusing to me.

              For what ever reason you are obviously in a different place if you think my banter with the Colonel is actually insulting or has anything to do with you. If you want to make a point you should use an example that actually supports you point.

              • I think one could think the two definitions were the same if they didn’t know JAC or just read them without applying them to JAC specifically

                . You have to remember that JAC doesn’t define greed as a bad thing-so his use of the word “have” is neutral-it doesn’t mean need or use. Tell me if I’m wrong JAC.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                V.H.

                You are correct. More than you have simply means more of something.

                You are also correct in that I do not support the definition which includes a value judgment as part of the definition. Greed is the desire for more. Whether more is good or bad depends on what it is and why it is desired.

                But putting me aside, the words “have” and “need” are completely different concepts. So even not knowing me should cause one to recognize the difference in the two definitions. I have what I have, I may or may not “need” more

                Let alone that one is loaded with moral judgment, based on how we have been conditioned to think of “need”. Which in turn raises the question, who decides what my needs are?

  34. gmanfortruth says:
  35. Just watched a great interview with the Black Sheriff of Milwaukee….he said that the people that are showing up and creating the violence are simpy anarchists using violence and in the name of virtue. Each time you cancel a rally because of the protesters you are enabling the protesters. He said you should never give into the thugs and goons that are attending these rallies…..stand firm. The police in Milwaukee are ready to to stop any violence that shows up. He went on to say that the voice of free speech was shut down last night.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Other than the protesters, today, do not realize that they are the nazi’s and fascists of the 20’s and 30’s. We are seeing how much the rule of law is being followed today.

      I just looked up the legal definition of “Extortion” and these people certainly meet the standard to be charged with that crime, and not just unalwful assembly. Any good prosecuter could make the charge. They also are coming very close to kidnapping. Keeping people forcefully and fear of injury of person or property and against their will in a place that they do not wish to be in or at. Pretty much to extort. Extort your vote in fear of the consequence if you do not see it their way.

      remember I did a while ago predict that this would happen to Trump. We’ll just see how the people react to this behavior, and realize that if it continues, it is far more dangerous to our liberty and nation than anything Trump ever dream of doing if he was POTUS.

      • Dale….careful……you and I are probably considered doting old fools out of touch with reality. Off subject, I noticed today that more and more of myhair follicles are committing suicide….jumping off the top of my head….I started to count the gray hairs in my head and realized that they are becoming easy to count because there ain’t much left. Sigh……time to buzz the head.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Of course that is why we are labeled conservatives…….my hair even in my mid 60’s is still full and I’m proud to show it off. Started going gray at 40 and has been white for a number of years. Maybe, the full head of hair has two reasons for staying that way. One I always hated hats and rarely wear one. Number two is that many will thing there is ample food down at the roots. ie plenty of S!!!! and fertilizer between my ears

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          These people are extorting the voting process by threat and violence. At least George Washington to influence the voters when he ran for the House of Burgesses brought 140 gallons of whiskey to his campaign gathering .

  36. With my fantastic memory of the past events in my life, I am going to start with Last-First.

    The riotous 1960’s ended at Kent State. When the demonstrators acting like total morons finally managed to provoke true violence, they got it back in spades. After that demonstrations became very tame. Then there were the hard hat riots in NYC shortly thereafter. It is amazing, doing the Google Search just how anti hardhat the info out there is.

    I can remember, just getting out of the service as the Anti-war march was being organized. NVA flags and all. They were going to go to 39 Whitehall, close to Wall Street, the main induction center for the military and do their thing. As the draft card and flag burning were about to commence, about 200 construction workers went nuts. I suspect there was a little planning here (just in case) but they were outnumbered perhaps 50 to 1 and they still broke that demonstration up. To this day they are vilified as being eh “aggressors”. Here’s a sample:

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2014/05/day-labor-history-may-8-1970

    Anyway, the “anti-war demonstrations, after these events became a heck of a lot more peaceful.

    With last nights antics we have seen the beginning of a replay of ’60’s tactics. had to turn off the news last night in disgust. Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and even O’Bama blaming Trump for starting it! Just like the reports on the hard Hat riot. I expect we are in for a really interesting summer. Saw many “Bernie” signs there last night along with Mexican flags (all went unmentioned) but heard the Fox folks “speculate” that the Koch brothers were behind it. I hate to say it but JAC and Flag and G-man may actually have been on the money in their “it don’t matter who you support”.

    This whole thing I suspect will backfire big time. The angry giant that Yamamoto feared has been awakened. Trump was not fooling in the beginning when he mentioned “the silent majority”. Trump can ride this one, like Nixon did, right into the White House if they don’t shoot him first.

    In the interim, I am sure I have at least one pair of bell-bottoms left in the back of the closet to go with my tie dyed T shirt, love beads and sandals. Gonna take a while to grow the ponytail with the sparse hair in the back though!

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Bell bottoms, sandals and tie dyed t’s,,,Stephen!!!! With the bike photo as a young person I mistook you for a Steve McQueen type of guy and totally cool, before better living through chemicals got him lost.

      You had to have had a pair of those “desert rat” style suede boots…….I do have to admit though I am a sandal wearing person, or I go right to being a neanderthal and go barefoot. I had a custom pair of sandals made in ’69 at a place called “Bless my Hide”. I still have them and they never wore out.

      • I still have a pair of desert boots. Came back in style about four years ago, scoffed up a pair.

        Nah, just kidding, the hippie thing kinda turned me off. Did the sideburns and once did a beard, Lost the beard when I went off the bike head first at 60MPH and landed on my face. Thank God it was there, saved a lot of skin.

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    SK

    Another poll showing Clinton beating Trump. Odd though. EXCACT results of another recent poll. I wonder if two outlets used the same poll and are trying to sell it as different. Anyway, here it is:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-crushes-trump-in-new-national-poll/article/2585326?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=im

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      With everybody on both sides of the argument being so allegedly anti-establishment how can anyone even consider Clinton? She has been so establishment and in it longer than anyone running, besides Bernie,who’s got her by a few years…….when does the liberal view eventually become the “establishment”. Seems to me that the liberal view is the establishment and anyone who opposes that view is anti-proletariat and to be silenced and re-educated or crushed, Anybody else notice for years the left has been telling the R’s that to be elected you have to become like us…..Except a Dem JFK supporter 56 years ago would be a radical war mongering right winger today. The left just keeps shifting to the left. I honestly believe Hillary is actually more to the left than Bernie. She just plays the shell game on her true identity and is far more experienced on lying.

      Cruz, all in all is the most anti-establishment because he does believe in the rule of law and the Constitution. But he’s smart, dry and stiff he does not excite the common herd, because mostly they just do not understand the big words and concepts. Trump you never know and he certainly gets the blood up of just about everybody. Maybe he is just what we need…a politically androgenous politician. Nobody can decern what he is,

      I can not imagine how hard it will be for anyone to get rid of waste in the government. Like what d13 and I have said…..you don’t spend your budget and you lose that amount next year. So the “O’s” always spent the money even though we didn’t need it even next year on stuff that couldn’t even be used in the command. Then you’d get the automatic bump increase. Why…..we always got no matter what all the material we needed to stay up and running with the equipment you had.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Dale

        Not everyone is anti-establishment, or even anti-insider.

        Many are simply emotionally linked to their support for a particular person.

        With D’s there is those tied to Clinton directly. There are those adamantly tied to anything anti-Republican. This last bunch tend to think of themselves as pragmatists. The “only Hillary can win” crowd.

        On the left it is the ideologues who are supporting Bernie. He is views as and outsider because he has been and independent and anti-establishment because of independent status and his support for democratic socialism.

        There is also group for Bernie that I think are PRO Democrat but ANTI Clinton. Those folks are not going to vote in the general election.

        EACH side has a number of factions and identifiable groups. They also have a bunch of people that are hard to describe. It does make for a very interesting show.

        P.S. I agree with your comments this AM about all the demonstrations, violence and reactions. The question going forward is whether the “left” backs off or doubles down on their inflammatory rhetoric. By the way, Trump has not been their only target. You should see Chris Matthews nightly trying to turn Cruz into McCarthy. It is sickening.

        My prediction; if Trump starts failing watch the demonstrations move to Cruz events.

        Big Question: Will Trump supporters, or the “silent majority” start crashing Clinton or Bernie rallies???

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Unfortunately the fuse has been lit and will go unchallenged by the left. Their leaders will by their silence condone the actions. People like Pelosi and Reid will not be as vocal in support as they were during the OWS events the other year. Obama and Lynch will do nothing other than blame the R’s for being who they are and thusly justify any action to defeat them. Watch Obama, he will somewhat come out against the violence and protests but then he will deliver a back hand against the R’s. I believe he already did this against Trump…right?

          I’ll be surprised if this isn’t what happens……..if the violence continues by the left against the R’s then we as a nation really a choice to make. What type of nation do we want?

          Going to open the bookcase right now and pull out, “It Can’t Happen Here” and read it again.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Dale

            Re; Obama. Yep. He did it yesterday and again to today. Not just Trump but once again sticking anyone who call themselves an R with the stigma. And of course delivered in his best sarcastic pseudo comedian voice and manner. God I dislike that man.

            I am digging out my copy of Sun Tsu’s The Art of War. Then maybe heading to the store for some reloading equipment. Wait, did I say that out loud???

            • JAC says: ” I am digging out my copy of Sun Tsu’s The Art of War. Then maybe heading to the store for some reloading equipment. Wait, did I say that out loud??”

              Heh heh……JAC is absorbing Texan things subliminally,,, heh heh!!!! Great reading, by the way….required reading for the war college. That and the “tactics of Shaka Zulu”…….

              • Especially, the horns of the bull…..

              • Just A Citizen says:

                I did not know Zulu’s tactics were in print. I will do some searching.

                Other military readings, which I am sure you also covered at the college, Sitting Bull & Crazy Horse along with the great advancing retreat of Chief Joseph.

              • Explained clearly in the 1964 Stanley Baker, Michael Caine epic “Zulu” about Roark’s Drift and the most decorated action in British Army history!

  38. gmanfortruth says:

    It has begun…The division is now really showing itself. Sad time for America and I totally blame the Liberal’s, all of them. They choose violence, so they shall get it far worse then they would like. Just watch. Just heard Cruz, Rubio and Kasich, fuckin cowards, all of them

  39. gmanfortruth says:

    I would really support Kasich if not for his NEOCON tendencies. What a shame. The sad part is, I’m not sure he is telling the truth about it.

  40. gmanfortruth says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      I get a kick out of all this deep state conspiracy to undo somebody who threatens them.

      If they are in fact controlling the wealth, who gets it and how much, then why would they waste their time trying to destroy someone or “undo” their election?

      They have been buying people off for a long, long time. Why wouldn’t they just buy off the next guy?? And if you think a Trump cannot be bought you are fooling yourself. Just think what happens to him when the Banks notify him that the Line of Credit is gone. Those kids of his, out on the streets? Or, keeping their cushy life? I am betting the latter.

      If the populists really want to overthrow the “oligarchy” or “deep state” they need to find one of two people.

      1. An insider so disgusted that he/she is willing to go undercover to destroy the beast. A traitor to their own tribe, or;

      2. Someone who is not just an outsider but has nothing to lose. Someone immune to the threats and power that will be used against them.

      Problem is, very rare to find 1 and 2 can be dangerous to everyone, not just the oligarchs.

      Which reminds me, didn’t our Founders essentially sanction an “Oligarchy”?? Rule by the elite few. They certainly were not planning on having the unwashed masses elected to power. Even Jefferson leaned more to Plato that we often admit.

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    Integrity, or some other motive??

    There are many other states which allow more freedom that Utah. So why South America??

    Perhaps it is freedom beyond what the entire USA can provide? Or maybe it is freedom from the tax collector, or freedom from the ensuing riots and civil war?? Much more to this story than just medical pot.

    http://www.sltrib.com/home/3631481-155/madsen-says-he-will-move-out

    • I have a few bucks…..I will buy the ticket….and for the rest of them that want to leave.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        I will chip in as well. Problem is I think this guy is one we want to stay. Wait on that. Maybe not.

        He has the right mind set but lacks the will to fight.

  42. gmanfortruth says:

    In 1865, a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .

    In 1881, a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States – who later died from the wound.

    In 1963, a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States .

    In 1975, a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States .

    In 1983, a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States .

    In 1984, James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

    In 1986, Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

    In 1990, James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

    In 1991, George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen , TX .

    In 1995, James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

    In 1999, Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

    In 2001, a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.

    In 2003, Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

    In 2007, a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

    In 2010, a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

    In 2011, a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

    In 2012, Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis .

    In 2013, a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown , CT.

    As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

    Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

    Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders.

    SOLUTION:

    It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

    We don’t need gun control, we need Democrat control.

    Guns don’t kill people, Democrats do!

    (I didn’t write this, but it’s priceless)

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      interesting write up on Martin Luther King’s political stance

      Political affiliationTime and time again, liberals claim that MLK was a Democrat. Liberals point to the people he associated with or that he opposed Barry Goldwater as proof that MLK was a Democrat. There is considerable evidence that he was not a Democrat. Martin Luther King Sr. was a Republican, that would almost certainly make his son a Republican. Only after his son was arrested did King Sr. plead to President Kennedy for his safe release. It is noted at that point MLK Sr. switched parties to support Kennedy. This despite Kennedy voting against the 1957 Civil Rights Act and being initially opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King. The March on Washington was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. In addition, Robert Kennedy allowed the FBI to wiretap MLK Jr’s phone on a trial basis due to suspicion that Dr. King’s associates were Communist; this was later expanded during Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency; which undermined King.[11][12]

      It was the Republicans who led the way to free the slaves nearly one-hundred years earlier, that fact was not lost on his generation. Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association said, [he] “absolutely was a Republican,” and “We were all Republicans in those days. The Democrats were training fire hoses on us, siccing dogs on us.”[13] In the 1960s, King would have witnessed the Democrat parties position on pro-segregation, against the Civil Rights Act. King was most likely aware of high profile Democrats such as Al Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd voting against repealing segregation. Southern Democrats rallied around Jim Crow laws and Black Codes which were targeted against King’s message. Dixiecrats blocked the social and political progress of black Southerners for decades. Was King unaware? Doubtful. It was Republican President Eisenhower who began the push for integrating all white schools and the desegregation of the military. To think King was a witness to all the upheaval Democrats caused and then became a champion of Democrats is a stretch.

      Also please note MLK’s convicted assasin, James Earl Ray, was a staunch George Wallace supporter and campaigned rigorously in LA during his presidential run. Want to bet if he could legally vote he’d have been a democrat. If there was a high level government conspiracy against MLK it most certainly driven by the democrats and not any republican.

  43. JAC…..Shaka Zulu did not write anything but his tactics are all through several books written by the British Military.

    Sitting Bull and Crazy horse were novice’s. First rule of Indian combat…outnumber your opponent 25 to 1…..second rule of Indian combat…..always pit cavalry against foot soldiers. The Sioux and Cheyenne were excellent light cavalry.

    Chief Joseph was a masterful movement.

  44. Not a happy day. Working on taxes. Why does the F(*&^^% government need so much of my money?

  45. I’ve been listening to a debate between Reagan and RFK. Oh for another Reagan.

  46. Ok, JAC, here goes…..***Takes drink of Dr Pepper*** studies JAC’s response….: Greed = desire for more than you have. Maximize profits = self explanatory, unless we are going to redefine “profits”.

    ***continues to study****opens up the Webster,,,, Greed=a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed….*****continues to study*****Notes that selfish and excessive is left out of JAC’s definition…..*****continues to study***** wondering if wind has actually dried out D13’s brain……..hmmmmmmmm

    Nope….cannot see the difference….you are saying greed is a desire for more than you have. Ok….I will go ahead and use your definition ( even though I think I said the same thing)….so Greed is a desire for more than you have.

    Ok…..taking your definition…..is greed a moral negative to you to want more than you have? What is wrong with greed and why is it considered a negative? I see it as a positive…I see it as reaping rewards or having success at what ever it is…I see nothing wrong with the desire to want or have more than you need OR have. Keeping this in context with Trump, i was trying to refer to people who are against Trump simply because he has so much. He is rich….and people see that as wrong. People are saying heis buying the Presidency….IS he doing anything different than Cruz or Clinton or Rubio, who are taking taxpayer matching funds to fund their POTUS run. I would think there is a great argument to using tax payer matching funds as a level or three under Trump. Taking the Trump issue further, maximizing profits seems to resonate to greed as well. Legally obtaining greater profits or having more money than you can spend in ten lifetimes, seems to be bad and people say that Trump is evil if he uses the law to maximize profits and wealth. The law is there for him to use…..it matters not if the elite were able to get favorable laws and/or regulations passed…it is still the law. Everybody has access to the same law. I also do not buy that the little person cannot do anything about it…..it seems to me that the little person is trying to do something about it and it has thrown the GOP into a tizzy. AND, for those that have problems with bankruptcies,…..I did a little research on bankruptcies and fortune 500 companies. Holding companies get big by using bankruptcies in subsudiaries as a normal business practice…..So Trump has had 4 or 5 bankruptcies…General Electric has filed over 100 bankrutcies in various subsidiaries over its lifetime. So has ADM….so has just about every fortune 500 company out there. More and more Chapter 11 “Reorganizations” are filed with the sole purpose of promptly selling an over-leveraged company’s assets to a new entity. At times, principals of the over-leveraged debtor even participate in the new acquiring entity.

    This is where I was trying to go, My Western Friend…..

    So…I really want someone to impart a moral judgement on obtaining wealth legally and using whatever legal tactics to do so. If a law or regulation is considered immoral, who gets to make that assumption?

    I want people to not like Trump because of his policies and not because he is rich and uses strategic business practices, legal practices, to gain wealth. There is absolutley nothing wrong with being rich, obscenely rich, or decadent rich.

    Next question…..if Trump uses his own money to run for POTUS and refuses taxpayer funds, why is he a pariah and people like Rubio and Cruz and all the others take, and can keep, taxpayer funds to run for POTUS…..and please spare me the dribble of, only the rich will win without matching funds.

    REMEMBER FOLKS….I VOTED CRUZ….I am not a Trump man but I will take his side when his rights are being trampled and when peopl ostracize him for business practices and being rich. Yes, I know he has tried things and been caught and paid his fines or losses but so has every single major 500 company out there. You know…..the same companies that fuel your 401k’s.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      “Ok…..taking your definition…..is greed a moral negative to you to want more than you have?” NO.

      What is wrong with greed and why is it considered a negative? NOTHING. IT IS CONSIDERED NEGATIVE PRIMARILY DUE TO THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHICAL TEACHINGS AND THEN COMPTE’S THEORY OF ALTRUISM. NOTE THAT WHEN YOU SEARCH WEBSTER YOU GET TWO DEFINTIONS. THE “SIMPLE” ONE WILL ESSENTIALLY BE MINE. THE OTHER ADDS THE CONCEPT OF “SELFISH” AND “NEED”. THESE ARE VALUE STATEMENTS, DENOTING SOME ETHICAL JUDGMENT.

      HOW CAN WANTING MORE BE GOOD OR BAD IF WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS WANTED AND WHY? ADDING THE CONCEPTS OF SELFISH AND NEED DO NOT ADDRESS THIS TRUTH. NOT UNLESS MORAL JUDGMENT IS BEING ADDED TO BOTH WORDS AS WELL. MAKING THE DEFINITION A FALLACY…USING THE SAME CONCEPT TO DEFINE ITSELF. HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT ONE MY TEXICAN FRIEND?

      “I see nothing wrong with the desire to want or have more than you need OR have” YOU HAD THE RIGHT ANSWER BUT NOW YOU ARE FALLING INTO THE TRAP SET BY THE MORAL FALLACY. QUICK GET OUT OF THE QUICKSAND BEFORE IT IS TO LATE.

      HINT: WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT MORE THAN THEY NEED? HOW COULD THEY WANT MORE THAN THEY NEED? WHO DECIDES NEED IF NOT THE PERSON WANTING? IF THEY WANT IT, DON’T THEY NEED IT?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      D13

      OOPS, HIT THE POST BUTTON TO SOON.

      ” I would think there is a great argument to using tax payer matching funds as a level or three under Trump.” YOU ARE STEPPING INTO THE ABYSS, TURN BACK IMMEDIATELY. I DON’T THINK YOU WANT TO CONDONE THEFT FOR POLITICAL RACES DO YOU?

      Taking the Trump issue further, maximizing profits seems to resonate to greed as well. IF IT IS MONEY YOU SEEK AND YOUR PROFIT IS IN MONEY THEN MAXIMIZING PROFIT IS CERTAINLY NEEDED TO GET MORE. SO IN AFFECT IS IT NOT GREED THAT DRIVES THE PURSUIT OF PROFIT? IS NOT MAXIMIZING THAT PROFIT SIMPLY AN EFFORT TO BE AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE? MAXIMIZING OUTPUT FOR A GIVEN INPUT, GREATER EFFICIENCY WHICH IS MAXIMIZING PROFIT.

      LETS PUT IN HUMAN SURVIVAL CONTEXT. IS NOT MAN’S VERY SURVIVAL DEPENDENT UPON GETTING MORE AND MAXIMIZING THE BENEFITS GAINED FOR THE EFFORT EXPENDED??

      JUMPING AHEAD, PROFITS…MAXIMIZED OR OTHERWISE HAVE NO MORAL VALUE. THAT VALUE IS DETERMINED IN THE “HOW” THOSE PROFITS ARE ACQUIRED. LIKE GREED, PROFITS HAS BEEN HIJACKED AND ASSIGNED MORAL VALUE IN ORDER TO PREVENT RATIONAL CONCLUSIONS.

      YOU SEE IT MAKES PROFIT, THUS THE EXISTENCE OF MAN, IMMORAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO MORAL PROFIT EXCEPT THAT IS DETERMINED BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE MAN WHO EARNS THAT PROFIT. FOR HOW CAN HE DECIDE WITHOUT BEING GREEDY?

      NOW YOU SEE THE NICE TWISTED LITTLE TRAP THE SOCIALISTS HAVE CONSTRUCTED FOR US..

      “Legally obtaining greater profits or having more money than you can spend in ten lifetimes, seems to be bad and people say that Trump is evil if he uses the law to maximize profits and wealth.” CAN’T SPEAK TO WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT THIS, I DON’T CARE HOW MUCH HE MAKES OR HAS. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ANYONE HAVING MORE THAN THEY CAN SPEND IN TEN LIFETIMES?? WHO AM I TO SAY WHAT THEY CAN OR CANNOT HAVE. THERE IS A KEY PART MISSING. NOT JUST LEGALLY BUT MORALLY OBTAINED IS THE CORRECT ANSWER. WHICH LEADS TO YOUR NEXT POINT.

      If a law or regulation is considered immoral, who gets to make that assumption? WE ALL DO. AND THE WAY WE KNOW WHETHER AN ACT IS MORAL OR NOT IS BY APPLYING REASON AND CULTURAL NORMS. WITH LUCK THE LATTER IS BASED ON THE FORMER, BUT WE KNOW NOT ALL ARE.

      FOR EXAMPLE, BANKRUPTCY IS NOT AN ISSUE, BUT LYING AND TRYING TO HIDE ASSETS DURING BANKRUPTCY IS IMMORAL. LYING TO CREDITORS AND INVESTORS IS IMMORAL. WORKING TO HAVE THE GOVT. TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR YOUR OWN GAIN IS IMMORAL. IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE MOST BASIC RIGHT. THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHERE GREED AND MAXIMIZING PROFIT DOES BECOME IMMORAL. BECAUSE OF THE HOW MORE IS GAINED.

      “Next question…..if Trump uses his own money to run for POTUS and refuses taxpayer funds, why is he a pariah” HE IS NOT A PARIAH FOR USING HIS OWN MONEY. EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE TO USE EITHER THEIR OWN MONEY OR MONEY GIVEN TO THEM BY OTHERS. NO TAX MONEY SHOULD EVER BE USED FOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS, WHETHER FOR PEOPLE OR INTIATIVES/ISSUES.

      NOW LET ME ADDRESS YOUR GENERAL ARGUMENT, AFTER I TURN OFF THE CAPS.

      There. It was starting to hurt my eyes. I know you are addressing this to me but are making a broader point. One which I think is valid for some of the criticism I have seen. Frankly it is irrational and echoes of left wing socialist rhetoric.

      As for me, I have explained my opposition, and dislike, for Trump many times now. It has nothing to do with his money or that he has had failures. It is about his character and his proposals, or lack thereof.

      For example, having to use bankruptcy is not the issue with me. Lying during the process does but there is more. He brags about his genius and has built a persona on that. Yet his bankruptcies revealed he was not a good businessman. He over leveraged beyond reason and he knew it. Yet he tried to hide his failings while continuing to try and solicit more funding. I know that is business to many, but it borders on fraud for me.

      The eminent domain is a deal breaker for me. Because he supports using it for private/personal gain. We are not talking about public projects here. This shows me a disconnect with our heritage and the Constitution itself.

      The man lies. He lied during his presser the other night. He showed people his steaks, but they were not Trump steaks, they were somebody else’s. The water company does not exist. No telling where the water came from but it is not from his company. His network marketing company was a scam, reported as such, yet he purchased it and then backed selling it a valid and solid. We have all heard about Trump University and I posted the lawsuits over the failed condo project in Mexico. Did you also know that the biggest and most successful real estate developer in New York is actually a minor player there? He lost most of his holdings there. There is more, much more.

      Now we can dismiss this as just “business”, which is true for many. And if I were judging him only as a business man I would do just as I did when his people tried to get me to invest in his Hawaii condo project. I would say “hell no” and walk away.

      But he is running for POTUS. Hard nosed, strong willed I can handle, would even like to see it. But not lying and cheating, deceit and the obvious issues with self emulation. Like I said, he lacks character, he has no honor that I can see. Do others also have character issues? Yes they do. But none as bad as Trump, in my view

      I do not discount him because he is an outsider but I know for a fact that business and govt. are not the same and even good business people struggle in govt. And that is just at the mid to upper mgt. levels. It is not a deal breaker but since I see others with more positive character values who do have some govt. experience, I lean toward them.

      I have stated several times that fealty to the Constitution is my key issue this cycle. Trump falls flat on that issue. His stance on eminent domain is just the tip of the iceberg I believe.

      I do not like his bluster or tone. One does not have to display arrogance and childish name calling in order to be tough or resolute. Maybe he should have watched a few more John Wayne or Gary Cooper movies when he was young, instead of Don Rickles or Laugh In.

      To your last comment……. I completely agree. His rhetoric has been childish and inflammatory but that does not justify the demonstrations or the attempts by the left wing media to portray him as the next Hitler. It does not justify the left wing demonstrations and escalation to incite violence. But Trump does need to publicly condemn some of the behavior by his people prior to the last couple days. That guy who sucker punched the dude the cops were hauling out, for example. Again, you don’t have to brag or suggest people should be punched in the mouth to show you are actually tough or strong.

      By the way, If I was POTUS I would have let England know that if they sanctioned Trump for his speech there would be hell to pay. I think expelling their ambassador would have been a good opening move.

      I see that I have offered up one of my shorter responses so I think I will turn in for the night. We can resume tomorrow. Ooops, I mean later today.

      P.S. Ear muffs will help keep the wind from drying out your brain. Send pictures.

%d bloggers like this: