[Spirit100]

Keep em coming....and triple thumbs up on the reality of the situation! If Trump becomes the nominee our country is a lot worse off than many had thought.

But beware, I think Rubio may pull ahead and take the lead from Cruz. He vaulted into the SC vote with a very solid townhall. If he can build on it, Rubio in 2-3 months may pull away.

And it's going to be a lot of fun watching Bernie and Hillkill disenfranchise the democratic party!

And while Cruz and donald chew on each other....Rubio has a clear lane! Let's see what happens. And Kasich may surprise if he can gain momentum as well!

[Hoot Gibson]

Keep em coming....and triple thumbs up on the reality of the situation! If Trump becomes the nominee our country is a lot worse off than many had thought.

But beware, I think Rubio may pull ahead and take the lead from Cruz. He vaulted into the SC vote with a very solid townhall. If he can build on it, Rubio in 2-3 months may pull away.

And it's going to be a lot of fun watching Bernie and Hillkill disenfranchise the democratic party!

And while Cruz and donald chew on each other....Rubio has a clear lane! Let's see what happens. And Kasich may surprise if he can gain momentum as well!

The latest poll for South Carolina has Rubio down my 8 to Cruz and Cruz closing to within 5 points of Trump. Rubio is trying to run away from his charter membership in the Gang of 8 pro-amnesty group by lying about Cruz's record, but there really is no escaping until he admits his mistakes and stops playing the "everybody did it" card. Rubio is a lightweight compared to Cruz and without the GOP establishment's meddling, the race would soon be between Cruz and Trump.

If Rubio does not finish at least third in South Carolina, I am not sure that the GOPe will not latch onto somebody else as their candidate. Rubio canceled his appearance at a large conservative gathering organized by Michelle Malking, Mark Levin, and others in SC recently five minutes before he was scheduled to go onto the stage. Rubio does not register very high on the courage meter.

[Hoot Gibson]

Donald J. Trump warned all of us that it would be a YUGE mistake going to war with Iraq, do you remember? I don't - probably because it never happened.

I don't think Trump and his staff are as good with Google as they believe themselves to be. Instead of searching for evidence that his claim was true, they should have searched for evidence to the contrary.

[URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-iraq-war-opposes-supports-2016-2"]
In 2002, Donald Trump Said He Supported Invading Iraq[/URL]

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump proclaims in nearly every stump speech that he had the "vision" to oppose the US' invasion of Iraq in 2003.

But a Thursday-night BuzzFeed report undermined that claim.

The outlet unearthed a September 11, 2002, interview in which Trump halfheartedly stated his support for the war.

"Yeah, I guess so," Trump said then when directly asked by Howard Stern if he was "in favor of invading Iraq."

[Hoot Gibson]

How could Donald Trump not recognize that he was being set up by this question? Trump heaped more praise on the mystery candidate before springing the trap. The Ego is YUGE. Hilarious.

[YOUTUBE=""]QEJ6PxcmHec[/YOUTUBE]

[Hoot Gibson]

Maybe a president who would be neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be an improvement over Obama's animosity toward Israel, but I would prefer a candidate who recognizes the democracy of Israel as one of our most reliable and best allies in the world.

Trump says he’d be ‘neutral’ with Israelis and Palestinians

Leading Republican presidential hopeful suggests Israeli-Palestinian peace accord may be impossible: ‘Sometimes agreements can’t be made’

Republican hopeful Donald Trump said Wednesday that if he were elected president, he would be “neutral” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

After being asked by a voter at a Charleston, South Carolina, town hall event hosted by MSNBC about what steps he would take to broker an accommodation between the sides in the conflict, the GOP contender vowed to give it “one hell of a shot” and called it “probably the toughest agreement of any kind to make.”

But when pressed by host Joe Scarborough over whether he ascribed fault to either Israelis or Palestinians over the failure to reach a lasting accord, Trump declined to take sides.

“You know, I don’t want to get into it, because … If I win, I don’t want to be in a position where I’m saying to you and the other side now says, ‘We don’t want Trump involved,'” Trump said.

“Let me be sort of a neutral guy,” he continued. “A lot of people have gone down in flames trying to make that deal. So I don’t want to say whose fault is it. I don’t think it helps.”

[Hoot Gibson]

It looks like Trump has some more 'splainin' to do. Trump's outspoken opposition to the invasion of Iraq has been a cornerstone of his campaign. His problem is that evidence has surfaced showing that he supported invading Iraq six months prior to the start of the war.

The latest revelation shows that Trump seemed to be a fairly enthusiastic supporter of the war the day after it was launched.

My conclusion is that Trump has been caught red handed in telling another series of whoppers. I will leave it to Trump's supporters to make excuses for the lies.

Trump day after Iraq invasion: It’s ‘a tremendous success’

Republican primary front-runner Donald Trump claimed on the second day of Operation Iraqi Freedom that it appeared to be “a tremendous success from a military standpoint.”

Speaking to Fox News’ Neil Cavuto on March 21, 2003, Trump predicted the war would continue to bolster Wall Street.

“Well, I think Wall Street’s waiting to see what happens, but even before the fact they’re obviously taking it a little bit for granted, and it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint, and I think this is really nothing compared to what you’re gonna see after the war is over,” Trump said, as first reported by BuzzFeed News.

The billionaire businessman said he was optimistic that international protests to the war would not harm the U.S. economy.

“Well, I guess the French never liked us much except when we’re bailing them out, you know, to be totally honest with you,” he said. “But certainly we’re going to have to work on our public relations, because there’s no question that there are a lot of countries in the world right now that aren’t too fond of us, but I think that can be solved and probably pretty quickly."

Trump also speculated in the interview as to what kinds of weapons of mass destruction the Iraqi regime was hiding.

“The main thing is to get the war over with and just make it a tremendously successful campaign, and it’ll be very interesting to see what kind of weapons they uncover,” he said.

[Hoot Gibson]

I keep watching for Fox News to cover this story, but it looks like they may wait until after the South Carolina primary election to cover it, if they cover it at all. I am not opposed at all to arming our soldiers fighting ISIS and other Muslim terror groups with weapons tainted with pig's blood, but shooting defenseless prisoner? I draw the line there, as should any American citizen.

Two things about this story scream for coverage. First, there is the implication that shooting defenseless prisoners is okay with Donald Trump. The second thing is, it strikes me as stupid to repeat an easily debunkable internet hoax as fact for political gain. Is Trump just plain stupid or is this just blatant propaganda, where he has intentionally disregarded the truth for a story that he believes is too good to check?

Trump hails torture, mass killings with ‘pigs blood’ ammo in SC

Donald Trump closed his South Carolina campaign on Friday with a rambling speech highlighted by a giddy, almost childlike, enthusiasm for torturing and summarily executing the suspected enemies of America in the name of safety.

Trump was in free-association mode ahead of Saturday’s primary, dwelling for an extended time on one topic, like heroin in New Hampshire or Japan’s monetary policy, and then jumping to another.

“I’m really good at the trade,” the billionaire told a crowd of thousands. “I’m really good at the borders.”

RELATED: Polls say Trump is losing ground in South Carolina

The standout topic, however, was terrorism and national security. Trump repeated – favorably – an apparent myth about how General John Pershing summarily executed dozens of Muslim prisoners in the Philippines with tainted ammunition during a guerilla war against the occupying United States.

“He took fifty bullets, and he dipped them in pig’s blood,” Trump said. “And he had his men load his rifles and he lined up the fifty people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the fiftieth person he said ‘You go back to your people and you tell them what happened.’ And for 25 years there wasn’t a problem, okay?”

The story appears to be a hoax spread via e-mail forwards, according to rumor tracker Snopes.com, with no evidence it occurred.

The moral of the tale, according to Trump: “We better start getting tough and we better start getting vigilant, and we better start using our heads or we’re not gonna have a country, folks.”

[Hoot Gibson]

For those of you who have made up your mind to support Trump and to avoid watching the Orange One embarrass himself further in the debates, you missed watching him change his position on H1B visas 180 degrees during the debate. That's right, he advocated the exact opposite position during the debate that was posted on his website at the time.

Abuses of the H1B visa program cost Americans thousands of jobs each years.

I have never seen a presidential candidate flip-flop in the middle of a debate. It was a bad, bad night for Donald K. Trump.

(Note that Ted Cruz once supported expanding the H1B program but changed his position and has advocating curbing abuses in the program during his presidential campaign.)

[Hoot Gibson]

Once again, Donald J. Trump demonstrates that he is not only a liar but a cheater as well.

Trump does not have enough knowledge of the issues to participate in a debate without his campaign manager holding his hand. If he has to debate any of the remaining candidates one-on-one, expect 90 minutes of insults, because Trump is incapable of holding his own on the issues.

Donald Trump broke Fox News debate rules, consulted with campaign manager during break

Donald Trump reportedly broke Fox News’ debate rules on Thursday night when he consulted with his campaign manager on stage during the first commercial break of the Republican debate, rival campaign sources told CNN.

According to the CNN report, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski came on stage to speak with the GOP front-runner as soon as the debate went to commercial.

A Fox News source said Mr. Lewandowski refused to leave the stage when asked to do so by network staff.

Fox News and other networks strictly forbid candidates from talking with their campaign managers during a debate.

Fox News then allowed the other candidates to consult with their campaign advisers to even the odds at the debate, according to CNN.

But sources told CNN that Thursday night’s example was just the latest in a string of incidents where Mr. Trump has consulted with his campaign manager during debate commercials.

[RunItUpTheGut]

I knew youd come back around once Cruz one some of those Midwestern states nicker:

[Hoot Gibson]

I knew youd come back around once Cruz one some of those Midwestern states nicker:

I don't expect to change anybody who has already fallen for Trump, but maybe some lurker will be swayed by something I post. nicker:

I have been so critical of Fox News' biased coverage on Twitter, I would not be surprised if they blocked me from receiving the channel.

[Hoot Gibson]

After Trump told this whopper to his supporters in South Carolina, it was proven to be an internet hoax. Yet, he repeated the story to attendees this morning at a rally near Dayton. This is not history. This is Trump repeating claims that have been proven to be false. In Trumpese, this was another example of Trump lying.

Trump resurrects story of Muslims shot with pig's blood-dipped bullets

Presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Saturday resurrected an apparent hoax story about Muslims being executed with bullets “dipped in pig’s blood.”

He told supporters at a Dayton, Ohio, rally that U.S. General John Pershing was able to end terrorism for 28 years after executing 49 Muslim prisoners in the Philippines in the early 20th century.

It mirrored a story Trump told at a rally in Charleston, S.C., in February.
Trump described how Pershing allegedly dipped 50 bullets in pig’s blog and then shot 49 of 50 Muslims he had lined up. The 50th person was spared, Trump said, but Pershing gave him the blood-soaked bullet and told him to go back to his people and tell them what happened.

“He went back and said what just happened, and for 28 years there was no terrorism. So I’m not saying that’s a good thing, I’m not saying that’s a bad thing,” Trump said.

"This is history, folks. We’re either going to win or lose. We can’t continue to go the way we’re going right now.”

[Hoot Gibson]

Please take the following test if you have seen the movie Idiocracy.

Who Said It: Presidential Hopeful Donald Trump or ‘Idiocracy’ President Camacho?

[TheRealThing]

^^LOL, bias is a many splendored thing, is it not? The 'test' does however, serve to demonstrate the true origins of motivation for the never Trump forces. I was stunned to recognize President Comacho's face among the crowd of anti-Trump protestors last night in Salt Lake City.

But in the spirit of your post, I did allow myself to entertain the idea of who might serve perfectly in the role of Vice President, pitchman and spiritual adviser to President Comacho, and that would be none other than Mitt Romney.

[Hoot Gibson]

^^LOL, bias is a many splendored thing, is it not? The 'test' does however, serve to demonstrate the true origins of motivation for the never Trump forces. I was stunned to recognize President Comacho's face among the crowd of anti-Trump protestors last night in Salt Lake City.

But in the spirit of your post, I did allow myself to entertain the idea of who might serve perfectly in the role of Vice President, pitchman and spiritual adviser to President Comacho, and that would be none other than Mitt Romney.

Romney would make a better running mate than former President Camacho. Camacho, for all his faults, was brutally honest. Plus, the Secret Service would have its hands full protecting Trump from Camacho, who personally involved himself with dispensing justice.

As for bias, posting a candidate's own words and asking him to 'splain them seems to me to be the minimum that the news media should do.

My favorite Trumpism is the following:

Donald Trump: I consult myself on foreign policy, ‘because I have a very good brain’

Asked on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” who he talks with “consistently” about foreign affairs, Mr. Trump responded, “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things,”

Should the media just ignore Trump's stupid statements, or falsely claim that he was just kidding? I think ignoring the foolish things that Trump says shows more bias than just replaying them without comment does.

[TheRealThing]

Romney would make a better running mate than former President Camacho. Camacho, for all his faults, was brutally honest. Plus, the Secret Service would have its hands full protecting Trump from Camacho, who personally involved himself with dispensing justice.

As for bias, posting a candidate's own words and asking him to 'splain them seems to me to be the minimum that the news media should do.

My favorite Trumpism is the following:



Should the media just ignore Trump's stupid statements, or falsely claim that he was just kidding? I think ignoring the foolish things that Trump says shows more bias than just replaying them without comment does.

Of course not. But it would be nice if so many people did not add so much to what he says. Jorge Ramos for example said that a Trump supporter told him to get out of his country. What actually happened was the supporter told him if he did not like the way things are here, then he should leave. And I agree with the supporter 100%. Ramos is a rabid activist and he's being given leave to fake righteous indignation over the way border crashing criminals are being denied the dignity he thinks they somehow deserve. If one has an ax to grind I guess it must be somewhat easier to wink at all the inconsistencies and dishonest stretches being made by those aligning with neverTrump.

Donald Trump did not say that all those guilty of criminal trespass against this nation are thugs, rapists and drug dealers. He said that some of them are, and darn it, they are. The same is true of the majority of the contrived socio/politically correct criticisms with which his detractors are trying their best to bring him down. It is, for the most part, a total load of bull. He doesn't hate women, nor is he a misogynist or a bigot. And he certainly is not stupid or in any way vacuous and shallow.

The very ones who he has called out for their silliness, are the ones leading the charge against him. Frankly, if things hold true, I can barely wait to vote for him. It is an amazement to me that all of these geniuses totally missed all the anti-colonial, redistributionist rhetoric from the up and coming Barack Obama, but they're really on their game this time boy.

[Hoot Gibson]

Of course not. But it would be nice if so many people did not add so much to what he says. Jorge Ramos for example said that a Trump supporter told him to get out of his country. What actually happened was the supporter told him if he did not like the way things are here, then he should leave. And I agree with the supporter 100%. Ramos is a rabid activist and he's being given leave to fake righteous indignation over the way border crashing criminals are being denied the dignity he thinks they somehow deserve. If one has an ax to grind I guess it must be somewhat easier to wink at all the inconsistencies and dishonest stretches being made by those aligning with neverTrump.

Donald Trump did not say that all those guilty of criminal trespass against this nation are thugs, rapists and drug dealers. He said that some of them are, and darn it, they are. The same is true of the majority of the contrived socio/politically correct criticisms with which his detractors are trying their best to bring him down. It is, for the most part, a total load of bull. He doesn't hate women, nor is he a misogynist or a bigot. And he certainly is not stupid or in any way vacuous and shallow.

The very ones who he has called out for their silliness, are the ones leading the charge against him. Frankly, if things hold true, I can barely wait to vote for him. It is an amazement to me that all of these geniuses totally missed all the anti-colonial, redistributionist rhetoric from the up and coming Barack Obama, but they're really on their game this time boy.

Too much here to respond to everything, but if Donald Trump is not a misogynist, then there is no such thing. Trump has waged a one man war against women for years. Whether you agree that Trump is a misogynist or not, Hillary would make the War on Women, which has always been a phony charge against Republicans in general, a center piece of her campaign.

The difference with Trump, is that he is still adding to the ammunition that Democrats will use to fight the War on Women. Hillary Clinton's arsenal is huge if her opponent is Trump.

Trump's public insults of women would fill a book. If Trump is the nominee, his attitude and insults toward women will be a big issue and, unlike in past campaigns, the allegations will have some factual basis. Add to that fact that Trump is on his third marriage, having dumped two wives for younger trophy wives, while committing serial adultery.

Trump must be consulting with himself for advice on how to handle women while campaigning for president. Trump already has a huge gender gap among his supporters and that will not get any better if he runs against Hillary Clinton.

“You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass. But she’s got to be young and beautiful.”” — Donald Trump in an interview with Esquire, 1991

“It’s certainly not groundbreaking news that the early victories by the women on ‘The Apprentice’ were, to a very large extent, dependent on their sex appeal.” — Donald Trump in How To Get Rich, 2004

Angelina Jolie is sort of amazing because everyone thinks she's like this great beauty. And I'm not saying she's an unattractive woman, but she's not beauty, by any stretch of the imagination. I really understand beauty. And I will tell you, she's not — I do own Miss Universe. I do own Miss USA. I mean I own a lot of different things. I do understand beauty, and she's not.

Oftentimes when I was sleeping with one of the top women in the world I would say to myself, thinking about me as a boy from Queens, "Can you believe what I am getting?"

Well, obviously it's great outer beauty. I mean, we could say politically correct that look doesn't matter, but the look obviously matters. Like you wouldn't have your job if you weren't beautiful. (to a female reporter)

"@Cher should stop with the bad plastic surgery and nasty statements about good people running for office."

"You can't make false statements. Rosie will rue the words she said," referencing her claims that he went bankrupt. "I'll most likely sue her for making those false statements -- and it'll be fun. Rosie's a loser. A real loser. I look forward to taking lots of money from my nice fat little Rosie."

[TheRealThing]

Too much here to respond to everything, but if Donald Trump is not a misogynist, then there is no such thing. Trump has waged a one man war against women for years. Whether you agree that Trump is a misogynist or not, Hillary would make the War on Women, which has always been a phony charge against Republicans in general, a center piece of her campaign.

The difference with Trump, is that he is still adding to the ammunition that Democrats will use to fight the War on Women. Hillary Clinton's arsenal is huge if her opponent is Trump.

Trump's public insults of women would fill a book. If Trump is the nominee, his attitude and insults toward women will be a big issue and, unlike in past campaigns, the allegations will have some factual basis. Add to that fact that Trump is on his third marriage, having dumped two wives for younger trophy wives, while committing serial adultery.

Trump must be consulting with himself for advice on how to handle women while campaigning for president. Trump already has a huge gender gap among his supporters and that will not get any better if he runs against Hillary Clinton.

Most of the men who ply the same workaday world I do, all speak in those terms. And they are wildly appreciative of the opposite sex.

[Hoot Gibson]

Most of the men who ply the same workaday world I do, all speak in those terms. And they are wildly appreciative of the opposite sex.

None of those men are running for president. Given a choice between Trump and Hillary, Democrats and most women will take offense at Trump's record with women over the years.

I think Hillary's role in Bill's administration as the Manager of Bimbo Eruptions is more serious, but I am not a woman or a moderate. The War on Women will reverberate in the general election if Trump is the nominee.

Attacking Bill for all of his crimes against women will not dissuade Hillary from portraying Trump as the leader of the Republican War on Women.

[TheRealThing]

None of those men are running for president. Given a choice between Trump and Hillary, Democrats and most women will take offense at Trump's record with women over the years.

I think Hillary's role in Bill's administration as the Manager of Bimbo Eruptions is more serious, but I am not a woman or a moderate. The War on Women will reverberate in the general election if Trump is the nominee.

Attacking Bill for all of his crimes against women will not dissuade Hillary from portraying Trump as the leader of the Republican War on Women.

I think you are exactly right. The same brain dead Clinton die hards and Obama twicers are going to be predictably selfish and shallow this election cycle. They will vote Democrat, because that's who gives them welfare. If Republicans promised to give them even more, they would switch in a heartbeat. You have all the lies and bloviations, and then you have the simple truth, they are bought and paid for. The war on women is made of straw and anybody who would actually believe it is too stupid to vote with their head in any circumstance.

They hit Romney with the same imbecilic drivel and it stuck anyway. These guys would make the same argument no matter who was on the other ticket so why knock one's self out worrying about it? Trump isn't the most articulate man I ever heard to be sure, but he has more than held his own against the Clintons so far.

Ted Cruz cannot mathematically make muster, he needs 80% of the remaining delegates, Trump can and likely will. Hillary on the other hand is in my mind, a vacuous shrew of a former first lady who had a senatorship and a secretary of state job handed to her. She couldn't lead the gang who couldn't shoot straight and if we hand her the keys to the White House, I think we can all agree our kid's future, as well as our own immediate future are in great jeopardy.

Ted and Trump should if for nothing else, come to terms for the sake of their own hides and unite under one banner in order to serve, and frankly save this nation. Anybody who cannot agree with that is not seeing the same mess I am.

[Hoot Gibson]

I think you are exactly right. The same brain dead Clinton die hards and Obama twicers are going to be predictably selfish and shallow this election cycle. They will vote Democrat, because that's who gives them welfare. If Republicans promised to give them even more, they would switch in a heartbeat. You have all the lies and bloviations, and then you have the simple truth, they are bought and paid for. The war on women is made of straw and anybody who would actually believe it is too stupid to vote with their head in any circumstance.

They hit Romney with the same imbecilic drivel and it stuck anyway. These guys would make the same argument no matter who was on the other ticket so why knock one's self out worrying about it? Trump isn't the most articulate man I ever heard to be sure, but he has more than held his own against the Clintons so far.

Ted Cruz cannot mathematically make muster, he needs 80% of the remaining delegates, Trump can and likely will. Hillary on the other hand is in my mind, a vacuous shrew of a former first lady who had a senatorship and a secretary of state job handed to her. She couldn't lead the gang who couldn't shoot straight and if we hand her the keys to the White House, I think we can all agree our kid's future, as well as our own immediate future are in great jeopardy.

Ted and Trump should if for nothing else, come to terms for the sake of their own hides and unite under one banner in order to serve, and frankly save this nation. Anybody who cannot agree with that is not seeing the same mess I am.

There are millions of conservatives who will not vote for Trump under any circumstance and I am one of them. Trump is a disaster waiting to happen and Ted Cruz throwing away his future to serve as VP to a madman would not help a Trump administration succeed

As for Cruz, he needs to win about 54 percent of the vote to capture enough delegates to win because of the number of winner take all states remaining. Without Kasich in the race, that would be far from impossible. Polls have consistently shown that Cruz would beat Trump comfortably in a head-to-head match. Kasich is in the race to make sure that neither Cruz nor Trump get enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. The most likely outcome, IMO, is a Trump/Kasich ticket.

The polls that Trump supporters have been ignoring for months are the ones that show Trump losing to Hillary by a comfortable margin. Without the free, positive media coverage that Trump has received during the primaries, it will be extremely difficult for him to beat Hillary. If she gets indicted, it will be even harder for Trump to beat Biden, Elizabeth Warren, or whoever else Democrats decide to bring off the bench.

The #NeverTrump movement sees a race between Trump and Hillary as a choice between two dishonest Democrats. Trump continues to call Cruz "Lyin' Ted" at every campaign rally, which is stupid behavior for a candidate at this stage of the campaign (actually it has always been stupid). If Cruz ends up on his ticket, then he is much less principled than I have been led to believe.

If I were Cruz, I would honor my pledge to support the party's nominee by voting for Trump. Scheduling conflicts would prevent me from making any campaign appearances with Trump and I would make sure of it.

Trump may be an even more polarizing politician than Obama or Hillary. The difference is that Obama has very strong support among Democrats. After the convention, I expect that Hillary will also have strong support among her own party. Trump's nomination will severely depress Republican enthusiasm and turnout. He is a media creation and the media will help destroy him if he wins the nomination.

[TheRealThing]

There are millions of conservatives who will not vote for Trump under any circumstance and I am one of them. Trump is a disaster waiting to happen and Ted Cruz throwing away his future to serve as VP to a madman would not help a Trump administration succeed

As for Cruz, he needs to win about 54 percent of the vote to capture enough delegates to win because of the number of winner take all states remaining. Without Kasich in the race, that would be far from impossible. Polls have consistently shown that Cruz would beat Trump comfortably in a head-to-head match. Kasich is in the race to make sure that neither Cruz nor Trump get enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. The most likely outcome, IMO, is a Trump/Kasich ticket.

The polls that Trump supporters have been ignoring for months are the ones that show Trump losing to Hillary by a comfortable margin. Without the free, positive media coverage that Trump has received during the primaries, it will be extremely difficult for him to beat Hillary. If she gets indicted, it will be even harder for Trump to beat Biden, Elizabeth Warren, or whoever else Democrats decide to bring off the bench.

The #NeverTrump movement sees a race between Trump and Hillary as a choice between two dishonest Democrats. Trump continues to call Cruz "Lyin' Ted" at every campaign rally, which is stupid behavior for a candidate at this stage of the campaign (actually it has always been stupid). If Cruz ends up on his ticket, then he is much less principled than I have been led to believe.

If I were Cruz, I would honor my pledge to support the party's nominee by voting for Trump. Scheduling conflicts would prevent me from making any campaign appearances with Trump and I would make sure of it.

Trump may be an even more polarizing politician than Obama or Hillary. The difference is that Obama has very strong support among Democrats. After the convention, I expect that Hillary will also have strong support among her own party. Trump's nomination will severely depress Republican enthusiasm and turnout. He is a media creation and the media will help destroy him if he wins the nomination.

You're wrong. There are only 1049 delegates left to be had. Cruz has 423 at present which leaves him 814 short. Now I realize if we're down to the time of splitting hairs here, and I'll admit I took the liberty to round up from the hard number which is 78%, but 80% for the sake of this argument is entirely satisfactory. There is none the less no way Cruz will get 814 of the remaining delegates. Can we at least agree on that?

Republicans will coalesce around Mr Trump in spite of the manufactured case against him, and unless Republican leadership goes completely rogue, he will beat Hillary.

[Hoot Gibson]

You're wrong. There are only 1049 delegates left to be had. Cruz has 423 at present which leaves him 814 short. Now I realize if we're down to the time of splitting hairs here, and I'll admit I took the liberty to round up from the hard number which is 78%, but 80% for the sake of this argument is entirely satisfactory. There is none the less no way Cruz will get 814 of the remaining delegates. Can we at least agree on that?

Republicans will coalesce around Mr Trump in spite of the manufactured case against him, and unless Republican leadership goes completely rogue, he will beat Hillary.

No, your math is right on delegates, but, as I said winning 78 percent of the remaining delegates does not require Cruz to win 78 percent of the votes. 54 percent will suffice and it will take less than that to win a plurality over Trump and deprive him of a majority.

Most Republicans would vote for Trump in the general election, but millions will not. The latest national polls have Hillary with a 13-14 point lead over Trump and a Cruz vs. Clinton contest within the margin of error.

The bottom line is that most Republicans do not support Trump. Most will end up voting for him over Hillary as the lesser of two evils, but millions of us will not. Trump is a very bad general election candidate and nothing that the GOP can do will change that fact.

Trump is the most likely nominee, but Cruz still has a slim, but realistic chance to win the majority of delegates. There is also a good chance that Trump will not win the majority of delegates needed to win the nomination in the first round of voting.

As for the "manufactured" case against Trump, there is nothing manufactured about it. Trump, to be kind, is a shady character.

[TheRealThing]

No, your math is right on delegates, but, as I said winning 78 percent of the remaining delegates does not require Cruz to win 78 percent of the votes. 54 percent will suffice and it will take less than that to win a plurality over Trump and deprive him of a majority.

Most Republicans would vote for Trump in the general election, but millions will not. The latest national polls have Hillary with a 13-14 point lead over Trump and a Cruz vs. Clinton contest within the margin of error.

The bottom line is that most Republicans do not support Trump. Most will end up voting for him over Hillary as the lesser of two evils, but millions of us will not. Trump is a very bad general election candidate and nothing that the GOP can do will change that fact.

Trump is the most likely nominee, but Cruz still has a slim, but realistic chance to win the majority of delegates. There is also a good chance that Trump will not win the majority of delegates needed to win the nomination in the first round of voting.

As for the "manufactured" case against Trump, there is nothing manufactured about it. Trump, to be kind, is a shady character.

As you say, there are a number of sources out there making the case that a majority of Republicans do not support Trump or who will not vote for him. All I can tell you is that has not been my experience, that is the majority of people I speak to, would vote for him. From all that I can understand , the level of contempt for Mr Trump is substantially less a factor than is being reported. If there is one thing I have learned it is that one must consider the source. And call them Independents, Reagan Democrats, or crossover voters, Trump has a huge draw. Though I believe the nitwits who are waging a top down campaign against Trump will to some degree stymie the surge of those who want to come under the big tent.

I predicted this whole mess well before it revealed itself in practical terms. But I am still shocked at the level of hypocrisy that establishment elitists and core conservative media have shown to the world. Or that they would open facedly spend 10's of millions of dollars against their own nominee front runner.

Unless the information I'm looking at is wrong, Cruz has averaged 29% of the vote. He only got 43.8% in his home state of Texas. Therefore, using the logic I have seen across the media, 71% of the voting public disapproves of Ted Cruz. I know that is not true, but they're still making the same calculation with regard to Trump.

[TheRealThing]

I did not make my first statement very clear in the post above. I meant to say that media is saying a majority of anti Trump Republicans would not vote for him. I doubt that will hold true in practice. I don't know that, but at this point that's what I believe to be true.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Now that the race is down to 3, if Trump continues to win and even breaks 50 percent wouldn't this talk of the majority of Republicans not wanting him start to seem false? Kasich will be lucky to break 10 percent in most of the races left and I see a lot more voting for Trump then Cruz.

This thing is over.

[Hoot Gibson]

As you say, there are a number of sources out there making the case that a majority of Republicans do not support Trump or who will not vote for him. All I can tell you is that has not been my experience, that is the majority of people I speak to, would vote for him. From all that I can understand , the level of contempt for Mr Trump is substantially less a factor than is being reported. If there is one thing I have learned it is that one must consider the source. And call them Independents, Reagan Democrats, or crossover voters, Trump has a huge draw. Though I believe the nitwits who are waging a top down campaign against Trump will to some degree stymie the surge of those who want to come under the big tent.

I predicted this whole mess well before it revealed itself in practical terms. But I am still shocked at the level of hypocrisy that establishment elitists and core conservative media have shown to the world. Or that they would open facedly spend 10's of millions of dollars against their own nominee front runner.

Unless the information I'm looking at is wrong, Cruz has averaged 29% of the vote. He only got 43.8% in his home state of Texas. Therefore, using the logic I have seen across the media, 71% of the voting public disapproves of Ted Cruz. I know that is not true, but they're still making the same calculation with regard to Trump.

The information that you are quoting is not wrong, but I believe that you are misinterpreting it. Cruz has always been the second choice of most supporters of other candidates. Cruz failed to break 50 percent in Texas because Rubio actively campaigned there and won 17.7 percent in a five-way race.

Cruz narrowly lost Missouri, North Carolina, Louisiana and Kentucky because he split conservative votes with Rubio. Cruz has picked up the support of the overwhelming majority of Rubio supporters since Rubio dropped out of the race. The latest Utah poll has Cruz at 53 percent and Trump at 11 percent - not surprising after Trump suggested that Romney is no a real Mormon.

Trump's unfavorable rating is the highest Gallup has ever measured in a presidential candidate. That is not a calculation, it is the result of multiple polls over time. Trump's electability problems are not the result of a GOP top down campaign - they are self inflicted and his unfavorable rating is trending upward.

Trump's support is much stronger in Appalachia than it is in most of this country, so I think the fact that most of the people you speak to would vote for Trump is not a very good indicator of his popularity. If you lived in northern Virginia, you would have a hard time finding a Trump supporter, but he does great in the southwestern part of the state.

The Republican nominee should have no problem winning the White House this fall, but Trump will have an uphill battle on his hands if he wins the nomination. You and other Trump supporters are greatly underestimating the hatred that Trump has generated among those who are not supporting him in the primaries. If Trump gets the nomination, I predict that the Libertarian Party will have its best showing ever.

[Hoot Gibson]

Now that the race is down to 3, if Trump continues to win and even breaks 50 percent wouldn't this talk of the majority of Republicans not wanting him start to seem false? Kasich will be lucky to break 10 percent in most of the races left and I see a lot more voting for Trump then Cruz.

This thing is over.

Cruz is a longshot but he does still have a shot. If Rubio had withdrawn a week or two sooner, the race would look much different. Trump has averaged under 50 percent so far, and not many former Rubio supporters are going to become Trump supporters. Still, Trump has a good sized lead over Cruz and has the best chance to pick up 1,237 delegates. If he falls short and Cruz is close in the delegate count, then I would not be surprised to see Cruz get the nomination. Soros is backing Kasich to block both Trump and Cruz from picking up the majority of the delegates before the convention.

Cruz has consistently led Trump in head to head polls, so it would stand to reason that more uncommitted delegates would break toward Cruz than for Trump if Trump does not win on the first ballot.

In a close race, Rubio may still be the difference maker and he absolutely despises Trump.

[TheRealThing]

The information that you are quoting is not wrong, but I believe that you are misinterpreting it. Cruz has always been the second choice of most supporters of other candidates. Cruz failed to break 50 percent in Texas because Rubio actively campaigned there and won 17.7 percent in a five-way race.

Cruz narrowly lost Missouri, North Carolina, Louisiana and Kentucky because he split conservative votes with Rubio. Cruz has picked up the support of the overwhelming majority of Rubio supporters since Rubio dropped out of the race. The latest Utah poll has Cruz at 53 percent and Trump at 11 percent - not surprising after Trump suggested that Romney is no a real Mormon.

Trump's unfavorable rating is the highest Gallup has ever measured in a presidential candidate. That is not a calculation, it is the result of multiple polls over time. Trump's electability problems are not the result of a GOP top down campaign - they are self inflicted and his unfavorable rating is trending upward.

Trump's support is much stronger in Appalachia than it is in most of this country, so I think the fact that most of the people you speak to would vote for Trump is not a very good indicator of his popularity. If you lived in northern Virginia, you would have a hard time finding a Trump supporter, but he does great in the southwestern part of the state.

The Republican nominee should have no problem winning the White House this fall, but Trump will have an uphill battle on his hands if he wins the nomination. You and other Trump supporters are greatly underestimating the hatred that Trump has generated among those who are not supporting him in the primaries. If Trump gets the nomination, I predict that the Libertarian Party will have its best showing ever.

Trump's troubles are undoubtedly top down, the origins of the hatred you mention. The mercenaries which have invaded his rallies, are a Soros funded fifth column. If I were you, I don't know that I would be happy to see a libertarian fill a power vacuum in this country.

[Hoot Gibson]

Trump's troubles are undoubtedly top down, the origins of the hatred you mention. The mercenaries which have invaded his rallies, are a Soros funded fifth column. If I were you, I don't know that I would be happy to see a libertarian fill a power vacuum in this country.

Nobody expects for a Libertarian to win this fall - the Libertarian Party will get the votes of many people who feel obligated to vote but do not want to dirty their hands voting for either Hillary or the equally evil Donald Trump.