[Hoot Gibson]

[SIZE="2"]"As far as my opinion being "wrong, that is nonsense. Future events will prove whether my opinion was well founded or not, but your listing of names of economic experts who support Trump is not going to prove anybody's opinion wrong or right. It is amazing that you do not understand that simple fact.

In my opinion, Donald Trump has presented no credible plan to address the exploding national debt. In my opinion, neither has Hillary Clinton presented a credible plan to address the national debt. In my opinion, Ted Cruz has presented a credible plan to address the national debt by specifically naming five major federal agencies that he fight to eliminate.

None of the above statements in the poorly written paragraph above may be proven wrong, because they are each an example of a statement of opinion." [/SIZE]----Hoot Gibson



You admitted only 13 posts earlier to stating opinion, did you not? You even went as far as to point out that whereas I had posted the names and opinions of economic experts who support Trump's financial policy; You pooh-poohed my well sourced view point as name dropping, favoring instead your own opinion. It is amazing that you do not understand that simple fact.

What about your list was well sourced? You rattle off lists of names, as if those names should influence people to support Trump.

As I pointed out, Laffer dismissed Trump's threats of imposing high tariffs on Chinese products and Trump's promises to deport millions of illegal aliens as political rhetoric. In fact, Laffer has stated that he expects Trump to favor free trade policies if elected instead of pursuing the protectionist policies that he has espoused on the campaign trail.

So, who do you trust more, Donald Trump or Art Laffer? Art Laffer's assessment of Trump's economic plan is based partly on his assumption that Trump will not keep some of the most popular promises he has made during his campaign.

Laffer said in an interview that he does not believe Trump will follow through with his plan to deport all immigrants here illegally. He also said Trump, who has threatened tariffs on China and Mexico in order to leverage more favorable terms of trade for the United States, is no more protectionist on trade than Cruz — or almost any other American politician - and that he will eventually favor freer trade than America has now.

LINK

Maybe Laffer's prediction of which promises Trump will keep and which ones he will break will come true. My point has been and remains that listing endorsements with no context is pretty meaningless. When Ronald Reagan took office, his views on capitalism and economic freedom were well established. Laffer did not have to predict what kind of economic plan Reagan would adopt once he was elected president because Reagan's political philosophy had remained virtually the same since the early 60s and he put his ideas to work as California's governor.

Believing that Trump will create the same kind of economic climate as Reagan did requires a great deal of faith in Trump. Laffer has such faith and I do not. That is not an insult aimed at Laffer, it is an insult of Trump.

The above quote was taken from an August, 2015 Washington Post article but I recently watched a Laffer interview in which he made the same points as he made in the August article. I do not pretend to have Laffer's economic credentials, but my opinion of Trump's honesty is just as valid as Laffer's or anybody else's.

Opinions are necessary ingredient in any debate. What separates debate winners and losers is the ability to support those opinions with facts. There is no better example than our debate over whether Colorado held a primary election to pledge delegates to the GOP national convention in 2012.

You were doomed to lose that debate when you took the position that a well documented historical event - the non-binding 2012 Colorado GOP Caucuses - never happened. When the facts no longer support an opinion, it is time to adopt a new opinion. Adopting an opinion that is not supported by facts is worse than having no opinion at all.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Might want to go back and look over about half of your posts in that case.

Ive never tried to debate anything on here. That's the difference. You all are in a debate, I am not.

[TheRealThing]

What about your list was well sourced? You rattle off lists of names, as if those names should influence people to support Trump.

As I pointed out, Laffer dismissed Trump's threats of imposing high tariffs on Chinese products and Trump's promises to deport millions of illegal aliens as political rhetoric. In fact, Laffer has stated that he expects Trump to favor free trade policies if elected instead of pursuing the protectionist policies that he has espoused on the campaign trail.

So, who do you trust more, Donald Trump or Art Laffer? Art Laffer's assessment of Trump's economic plan is based partly on his assumption that Trump will not keep some of the most popular promises he has made during his campaign.



Maybe Laffer's prediction of which promises Trump will keep and which ones he will break will come true. My point has been and remains that listing endorsements with no context is pretty meaningless. When Ronald Reagan took office, his views on capitalism and economic freedom were well established. Laffer did not have to predict what kind of economic plan Reagan would adopt once he was elected president because Reagan's political philosophy had remained virtually the same since the early 60s and he put his ideas to work as California's governor.

Believing that Trump will create the same kind of economic climate as Reagan did requires a great deal of faith in Trump. Laffer has such faith and I do not. That is not an insult aimed at Laffer, it is an insult of Trump.

The above quote was taken from an August, 2015 Washington Post article but I recently watched a Laffer interview in which he made the same points as he made in the August article. I do not pretend to have Laffer's economic credentials, but my opinion of Trump's honesty is just as valid as Laffer's or anybody else's.

Opinions are necessary ingredient in any debate. What separates debate winners and losers is the ability to support those opinions with facts. There is no better example than our debate over whether Colorado held a primary election to pledge delegates to the GOP national convention in 2012.

You were doomed to lose that debate when you took the position that a well documented historical event - the non-binding 2012 Colorado GOP Caucuses - never happened. When the facts no longer support an opinion, it is time to adopt a new opinion. Adopting an opinion that is not supported by facts is worse than having no opinion at all.

Excuse me? LOL

Two things, first Laffer is all-in for Trump, I've heard him speak too many times about his support for Trump and his financial plan for that to be in question, even in your mind.

Secondly, I knew you would eventually run home to bring that back up, since in your mind getting the last word, or thinking you got the last word seems to seal the deal for you. And even though you can't seem to get your story exactly straight about what I actually said, still, it is hard to believe you would stick your head back into that same noose but here you are doing it anyway. So, even in watching the video, confusion still clouds your better judgment I see?

As fate would have it, I had actually conversed with Joey Bunch on a personal level in times past. According to the article the staff of The Denver Post do not agree with you. And it is as I said before and not that you will listen this time, but I will lay it out again just this once. If you're right, that means the staff of the Post either lied or they are wrong. You went to Politico or some such site and checked to make a point with me and they have it wrong according to the understanding and the words of the Coloradans I've read. The Colorado delegation of 2012 was bound to vote for Santorum in the first round. That according to senior political correspondent Joey Bunch.

Now, don't get me wrong. I know you're a front line economist, a psychiatrist, and a news anchor. I had just not considered that you were a lawyer and an expert on Colorado GOP rules and a historian as well. I know, I know, I should have been able to figure that out on my own. nicker:

But please, don't give up on this. Heck, you could probably bring it up a couple hundred more times before you could accept you're wrong.

[Hoot Gibson]

Excuse me? LOL

Two things, first Laffer is all-in for Trump, I've heard him speak too many times about his support for Trump and his financial plan for that to be in question, even in your mind.

Secondly, I knew you would eventually run home to bring that back up, since in your mind getting the last word, or thinking you got the last word seems to seal the deal for you. And even though you can't seem to get your story exactly straight about what I actually said, still, it is hard to believe you would stick your head back into that same noose but here you are doing it anyway. So, even in watching the video, confusion still clouds your better judgment I see?

As fate would have it, I had actually conversed with Joey Bunch on a personal level in times past. According to the article the staff of The Denver Post do not agree with you. And it is as I said before and not that you will listen this time, but I will lay it out again just this once. If you're right, that means the staff of the Post either lied or they are wrong. You went to Politico or some such site and checked to make a point with me and they have it wrong according to the understanding and the words of the Coloradans I've read. The Colorado delegation of 2012 was bound to vote for Santorum in the first round. That according to senior political correspondent Joey Bunch.

Now, don't get me wrong. I know you're a front line economist, a psychiatrist, and a news anchor. I had just not considered that you were a lawyer and an expert on Colorado GOP rules and a historian as well. I know, I know, I should have been able to figure that out on my own. nicker:

But please, don't give up on this. Heck, you could probably bring it up a couple hundred more times before you could accept you're wrong.

I have you a direct quote by Laffer, with a link, to a Washington Post article and you dismissed it as if it was heresay. I have you three links previously that contradict your misguided opinion that there was a binding primary held in Colorado in 2012 and you offer nothing but heresay as a response. And then you close with another personal insult. This gas become you're template for a post.

Delegates voluntarily pledged support to candidate's in 2012, which is why the winner of the 2012 Colorado non-fiction binding straw poll entered the national convention with only one more pledged delegate than Ron Paul and far fewer than Romney.

There was no straw poll this year because the national GOP had adopted a rule that would have forced Colorado to bind delegates to candidate's based on the vote had the state GOP held another presidential straw poll.

Colorado voted down a proposal that would have resulted in a 2016 GOP primary election, which would have awarded delegates to candidate's based on the results.

2012 Colorado Caucuses Results

2012 Caucus Process
Delegate Allocation: None of Colorado's 36 delegates will be bound to any candidate as a result of the Feb. 7 precinct caucuses. The state's delegates will be elected at county assemblies, held mostly on March 24, but before March 28, and allocated at district and state conventions in mid-April.

Eligibility: Caucus attendees must be registered to vote and affiliated with the Republican Party at least two months prior to the caucus, and must be a resident of their precinct for at least thirty days. Participation by absentee ballot or by proxy is not allowed.

Colorado Republicans cancel presidential vote at 2016 caucus

In 2008 and 2012, die-hard Republican voters gathered at caucus meetings to begin the delegate-selection process of selecting delegates to the national convention and voice support for presidential candidates in a straw poll.

The votes, however, didn’t require Colorado delegates to support any particular candidate at the national conventions. This allowed for delegates that supported a losing candidate to vote for the nominee and demonstrate party unity at the convention.

But the freedom also opened the door for political mischief, as Colorado saw in 2012 when Ron Paul supporters managed to win a significant portion of the delegate slots, even though Paul finished far behind other candidates in the Colorado caucuses.

The RNC tightened the rules in 2012 to eliminate nonbinding straw polls and help prevent similar stunts in the future, forcing Colorado Republicans to re-evaluate their process. An effort earlier this year to switch to a presidential primary system failed amid party infighting.

[Hoot Gibson]

The history lesson of the 2012 non-binding GOP Colorado Caucuses continues. Next, a first hand account from Colorado author and Republican delegate in both 2012 and 2016, John Daly. (The title is Mr. Daly's, not mine.)

BTW, the sources of the two articles in my previous post on this same subject were the New York Times and the Denver Post. Now, let's hear from somebody who participated in the 2012 Colorado GOP Caucuses.

Ignorant Outrage Over the Colorado GOP Caucus Vote

As a Colorado Republican who had caucused in prior years’ elections, I was a bit disappointed back in August when I learned that the state’s GOP executive committee was cancelling this year’s presidential preference poll.

As a matter of curiosity, it would have been nice to find out which candidate my state was leaning toward on March 1. As a matter of pride, it would have been pleasant to hear the results reported on the national news, and discussed by national pundits. As a matter of practicality, however, it wouldn’t have served any meaningful purpose to either the voters or the candidates — something that’s been true for many years in this state.

You see, contrary to the impression that many people have been left with over the past couple of days, Colorado’s traditional caucus-night poll had never been a binding, primary-like election. That’s not how it worked. It was a simple straw-poll — nothing more, nothing less. It wasn’t the process used to distribute delegates to the candidates.

The nomination procedure in this state has been driven by the election of representatives for over a hundred years (except for from 1992 to 2002). It starts with grassroots caucus attendees from local precincts voting on congressional-district delegates (their neighbors) to represent them, and ends at the state convention a few weeks later when the representatives finish selecting national delegates to back a candidate at the national convention.

Is it an easy process for outsiders to understand? No. As a delegate myself (both this year and in 2012), and therefore a functioning component of the process, even I find it confusing. I would much prefer a standard primary in my state.

That being said, the rabid, widespread claims of conspiratorial corruption being responsible for Donald Trump’s crushing defeat on Saturday has come from remarkable ignorance. Either that, or willful deception.

Next, an article from another Colorado newspaper, the Colorado Observer. (The newspaper stop publishing in 2014.)

Colorado Republicans Prepare for High Profile, Non-Binding Caucus

DENVER, CO – It’s politics at the most personal level, as Colorado Republicans gather tomorrow at their precinct caucuses to discuss and profess support for each of the four remaining GOP presidential candidates with their neighbors, and for the second time in four years, vote in a non-binding straw poll.

Most political observers expect former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, winner of Saturday’s Nevada caucus, to roll to another victory in Colorado. Such an outcome would make Romney 2-for-2 in the state’s preference poll after his 2008 romp.

Romney garnered just over 60 percent of the vote in Colorado’s 2008 straw poll, easily outpacing the eventual nominee, Sen. John McCain, by more than forty points. But while his support in Colorado remained considerable, Romney decided to end his campaign just days later, on February 7, 2008.

What a difference four years could make for Team Romney.

Clearly, Romney hopes that a Rocky Mountain repeat will provide a boost with delegates and demonstrate a major sign of campaign momentum, with contests in Minnesota and Missouri also taking place Tuesday night. With just one debate remaining in February and the month’s remaining contests three weeks away, an impressive Colorado victory would go a long way in making the path to the nomination for each of the remaining GOP rivals increasingly difficult.

There has been little polling in the state relative to the other early contests, but the most recent Public Policy Polling survey of likely Republican caucus voters shows Romney with a commanding lead over former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, 40 to 26 percent. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Representative Ron Paul carve up the remaining votes, with 18 percent and 12 percent respectively.

Among the four, Romney’s supporters are the most committed, but Santorum holds slight edges over the frontrunner in three important Republican constituencies: Tea Party supporters, Evangelicals, and self-described “very conservative” voters. But PPP also detected volatility among those likely caucus-goers, with 33 percent indicating they could change their candidate preference between Saturday, the day PPP conducted the survey, and Tuesday evening.

While Romney won the Nevada caucus, hovering just around the symbolic 5o percent mark, his perceived strength in Colorado will be put to the test. His campaign has earned a raft of top-level endorsements by the state’s GOP luminaries. But with three strong anybody-but-Romney candidates in Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul—representing different factions within the Republican primary and caucus electorate—splitting the “anybody but Romney,” the question will really not be about a Romney victory, that seems to be a foregone conclusion.

What political observers will try to ascertain is how the other three candidates split the non-Romney vote—and whether Santorum or Gingrich can begin to put distance between himself and the other to possibly force the other out of the race, and in enough time to make a real play for delegates. Paul remains formidable and should not be disregarded, whether one views him as a spoiler in the race or as a necessary libertarian influence, effectively giving voice to the more disaffected Republicans who vowed “never again” following the nomination of McCain four years ago.

Regardless of the outcome Tuesday, Colorado’s caucus procedure remains relatively unique, combining a traditional precinct caucus and state assembly process with a new, Iowa-like straw poll. To comply with RNC rules, the poll is non-binding, and delegates for the national convention will not be formally selected until April.

Lost yet? I asked Ryan Call, State Chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, to explain.

“Colorado has been holding precinct caucuses and party assemblies for over a hundred years to select party candidates and local party leaders,” explained Call.

Unlike primary states and other winner-take-all schemes employed around the country, Colorado’s caucus and assembly structure spreads the delegate selection over many months:

“A total of 36 delegates will be chosen to represent Colorado at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida in August – 3 delegates will be elected in each of Colorado’s seven congressional district assemblies in early April, and 12 delegates will be elected at the state assembly and convention on April 14, 2012, joining three party leaders (State Chairman, RNC Committeeman and RNC Committeewoman) as delegates under the RNC rules that will cast votes to designate the Republican candidates for President and Vice-President and adopt a national party platform,” Call elaborated.

To get elected delegate to the national convention, however, requires participation at the earlier precinct caucus and county assemblies. But recent memory points to a drastically different system of conducting Republican Party selection of Presidential nominees, and has led to confusion in both 2008 and this year as well.

“For a short time, Colorado held a Presidential primary in the spring during the Presidential election years of 1992, 1996 and 2000. But in 2002, the state legislature changed the state statute to eliminate the early Presidential primary election and return the selection of delegates to the national nominating conventions back over to the respective political parties,” said Call. He continued, “The principal arguments at the time were that eliminating the Presidential primary would save the state millions of dollars, and that it was really the responsibility of the party committees to run their own nomination process and select delegates to the national conventions under their respective party rules.”

Originally scheduled for March, Colorado’s 2008 caucus was moved forward to February 5, 2008, joining 24 other states in “Super Tuesday” voting. Republicans voted to once again move the date forward one month at a meeting last fall, skirting RNC rules penalizing states moving up their caucuses by ensuring the results remain non-binding.
February 6, 2012

If anybody wants to the truth about whether the Colorado GOP held a binding primary election or non-binding caucuses, then the information to which I have linked should remove all doubt. Not everybody is interested in the truth. For those people, I will continue to post information supporting my position. Furthermore, I challenge anybody who still believes that the straw poll taken during the Colorado GOP Caucuses bound delegates based on the of the poll, then I challenge you to post links to reputable sources that support resultsyour view of history. (A list of Trump supporter names is not evidence.)

[Hoot Gibson]

^There are so many articles that explain the truth about the process that Colorado used to elect delegates in 2008, 2012, and 2016, including the fact that there were no binding votes taken in either year, that I had to split them into multiple posts.

Next, another article from another Colorado newspaper, the Greely Tribune.

Colorado Republicans cancel presidential vote at 2016 caucus

Colorado will not vote for a Republican candidate for president at its 2016 caucus after party leaders approved a little-noticed shift that may diminish the state’s clout in the most open nomination contest in the modern era.

The GOP executive committee has voted to cancel the traditional presidential preference poll after the national party changed its rules to require a state’s delegates to support the candidate that wins the caucus vote.

The move makes Colorado the only state so far to forfeit a role in the early nomination process, according to political experts, but other caucus states are still considering how to adapt to the new rule.

“It takes Colorado completely off the map” in the primary season, said Ryan Call, a former state GOP chairman.

Republicans still will hold precinct caucus meetings in early 2016 to begin the process of selecting delegates for the national convention — but the 37 delegates are not pledged to any specific candidate.

“It’s an odd scenario. It’s not to say the campaigns won’t be there. ... But you won’t have a good reflection of support at the caucuses, much less Colorado Republicans as a whole.— Josh Putnam, political science lecturer at the University of Georgia

The Democratic Party still will hold a presidential straw poll March 1 — a Super Tuesday vote in a key swing state that is attracting attention from top-tier candidates.

For Republicans, no declared winner means the caucus will lack much of its hype. The presidential campaigns still may try to win delegate slots for their supporters, but experts say the move makes it less likely that candidates will visit Colorado to court voters.

The Colorado system often favors anti-establishment candidates who draw a dedicated following among activists — as evidenced by Rick Santorum’s victory in 2012 caucus. So the party’s move may hurt GOP contenders such as Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Rand Paul, who would have received a boost if they won the state.

Stae Republican Party Chairman Steve House said the party’s 24-member executive committee made the unanimous decision Friday — six members were absent — to skip the preference poll.

The move, he said, would give Colorado delegates the freedom to support any candidate eligible at the Cleveland convention in July. Republican National Committee officials confirmed that the change complies with party rules.

“If we do a binding presidential preference poll, we would then pledge our delegates ... and the candidates we bind them to may not be in the race by the time we get to the convention,” House said in an interview Tuesday.

The caucus is likely to occur in February, but party officials will meet next month to finalize the date.

In 2008 and 2012, die-hard Republican voters gathered at caucus meetings to begin the delegate-selection process of selecting delegates to the national convention and voice support for presidential candidates in a straw poll.

The votes, however, didn’t require Colorado delegates to support any particular candidate at the national conventions. This allowed for delegates that supported a losing candidate to vote for the nominee and demonstrate party unity at the convention.

But the freedom also opened the door for political mischief, as Colorado saw in 2012 when Ron Paul supporters managed to win a significant portion of the delegate slots, even though Paul finished far behind other candidates in the Colorado caucuses.

The RNC tightened the rules in 2012 to eliminate nonbinding straw polls and help prevent similar stunts in the future, forcing Colorado Republicans to re-evaluate their process. An effort earlier this year to switch to a presidential primary system failed amid party infighting.

Some Trump supporters apparently believe that the people of Colorado cannot even remember their own state's recent history. It is clear that there is either widespread confusion among Colorado's newspapers and among the participant's in the 2012 Colorado GOP non-binding straw poll, or TheRealThing is very, very confused. My money is on the latter. nicker:

[TheRealThing]

^^ I posted my source, which was the Denver Post, not exactly a rag even by today's standards. The article even had a video rider attached to cue up whenever a visit was made to the page. My understanding of said article and video was on the money. Therefore, if credibility is on the line in the matter, it would be that of The Denver Post, not my own.

I suppose I could invest every waking minute of my day for the foreseeable future and dredge up a legitimate rebuff of the intense effort you have made to win a debate point with me. But fortunately, my life is quite a bit richer than that, and besting you is no more rewarding than allowing you to diminish the debate by striving to be right about some small point is entertaining. Still in all, it is odd that The Post would go to such lengths to dishonor themselves. And it is somewhat of a head scratcher to answer why if Colorado's delegates have not in recent history ever been bound, that the State GOP would feel compelled to change Party rules so that they would... still not be bound? At any rate, they are all together unfazed that there are points of view that conflict with their own.

Only 95 unbound delegates went to the convention in 2012. The chart of interest revealed that only 13 of those were from Colorado. There is quite a bit of conflicting information on the subject, however, your assertions that delegates go to the convention and vote their own conscience were not exactly on point. And the notion that unbound delegates can have a lot of impact is off too.

[Hoot Gibson]

^^ I posted my source, which was the Denver Post, not exactly a rag even by today's standards. The article even had a video rider attached to cue up whenever a visit was made to the page. My understanding of said article and video was on the money. Therefore, if credibility is on the line in the matter, it would be that of The Denver Post, not my own.

I suppose I could invest every waking minute of my day for the foreseeable future and dredge up a legitimate rebuff of the intense effort you have made to win a debate point with me. But fortunately, my life is quite a bit richer than that, and besting you is no more rewarding than allowing you to diminish the debate by striving to be right about some small point is entertaining. Still in all, it is odd that The Post would go to such lengths to dishonor themselves. And it is somewhat of a head scratcher to answer why if Colorado's delegates have not in recent history ever been bound, that the State GOP would feel compelled to change Party rules so that they would... still not be bound? At any rate, they are all together unfazed that there are points of view that conflict with their own.

Only 95 unbound delegates went to the convention in 2012. The chart of interest revealed that only 13 of those were from Colorado. There is quite a bit of conflicting information on the subject, however, your assertions that delegates go to the convention and vote their own conscience were not exactly on point. And the notion that unbound delegates can have a lot of impact is off too.

One of the links that I posted is straight from the Denver Post. They have no credibility issue. You do.

If you were not so fearful of the truth, then you would have done some research (or have looked at the research that I have done) and learned that when Colorado Republicans file as candidates for delegate slots, they have an option to voluntarily pledge themselves to support a candidate. Many do, if they believe it enhances their chances of being elected, and many do not. I provided the breakdown of pledged vs. non-pledged Colorado delegates in previous posts, which you ignored. The straw poll has absolutely nothing to do with the pledging of candidates to particular candidates at the national convention. Zero.

The fact is, I do not believe that Joey Bunch told you anything different than what I have told you. You hear what you want to hear. Anything that casts Trump in a bad light, you simply ignore. If I am wrong, then post a link to an article or column in which Bunch took the position that you have attributed to him. He writes for a newspaper, so you should actually be able to provide some evidence that he really shares your position.

You should know better than to climb so far out on a limb with no evidence to support your position. My position is strongly supported and I am holding a saw. :biglmao:

[TheRealThing]

One of the links that I posted is straight from the Denver Post. They have no credibility issue. You do.

If you were not so fearful of the truth, then you would have done some research (or have looked at the research that I have done) and learned that when Colorado Republicans file as candidates for delegate slots, they have an option to voluntarily pledge themselves to support a candidate. Many do, if they believe it enhances their chances of being elected, and many do not. I provided the breakdown of pledged vs. non-pledged Colorado delegates in previous posts, which you ignored. The straw poll has absolutely nothing to do with the pledging of candidates to particular candidates at the national convention. Zero.

The fact is, I do not believe that Joey Bunch told you anything different than what I have told you. You hear what you want to hear. Anything that casts Trump in a bad light, you simply ignore. If I am wrong, then post a link to an article or column in which Bunch took the position that you have attributed to him. He writes for a newspaper, so you should actually be able to provide some evidence that he really shares your position.You should know better than to climb so far out on a limb with no evidence to support your position. My position is strongly supported and I am holding a saw. :biglmao:

I already did that weeks ago. Others on here enjoyed the video The Denver Post made featuring Joey Bunch as he dealt with your obsession about Colorado delegates explicitly. I don't worry a lot about what you think, but the fact that his monologue specifically precluded your latest false charge should be obvious even to you. Succinctly put, the video backs up what I have said, hard to fake that.

You do place an awful lot of importance on your own opinion, that much is certain. And mine is that you feel vindicated now before your imaginary 'targeted audience'. Though I make posts I feel strongly about and am proud of, this forum pursuit is just a pastime to me. Unlike you, I do not imagine that throngs of wide eyed blog groupies await my daily offerings on here. Nor do I believe the numbers of people reading BGR are in any way significant. In any case, 95 unbound delegates didn't amount to passing gas in a windstorm where the convention and eventual nominee were concerned in 2012, and they'll mean nary a bit more in 2016. If you weren't desperate to find anything, any conspiracy, any lie that offered you hope that Trump won't be the nominee, you'd see how small and petty your point of view about all of this has been.




Washington (CNN)
Donald Trump is less than 10 delegates shy of clinching the Republican presidential nomination following a win Tuesday in the Washington state primary.

The victory -- winning at least 40 of Washington's delegates -- means Trump now has 1,229 of the 1,237 delegates he needs to clinch the GOP nomination, according to CNN estimates. Four more Washington delegates are still to be decided, potentially bumping Trump's total even higher.

Trump will be President and your targeted audience will drop back down from the high water mark today of 2 or 3, to yourself again. The next 8 years will go down as the Trump Era.

[Hoot Gibson]

I already did that weeks ago. Others on here enjoyed the video The Denver Post made featuring Joey Bunch as he dealt with your obsession about Colorado delegates explicitly. I don't worry a lot about what you think, but the fact that his monologue specifically precluded your latest false charge should be obvious even to you. Succinctly put, the video backs up what I have said, hard to fake that.

You do place an awful lot of importance on your own opinion, that much is certain. And mine is that you feel vindicated now before your imaginary 'targeted audience'. Though I make posts I feel strongly about and am proud of, this forum pursuit is just a pastime to me. Unlike you, I do not imagine that throngs of wide eyed blog groupies await my daily offerings on here. Nor do I believe the numbers of people reading BGR are in any way significant. In any case, 95 unbound delegates didn't amount to passing gas in a windstorm where the convention and eventual nominee were concerned in 2012, and they'll mean nary a bit more in 2016. If you weren't desperate to find anything, any conspiracy, any lie that offered you hope that Trump won't be the nominee, you'd see how small and petty your point of view about all of this has been.




Washington (CNN)
Donald Trump is less than 10 delegates shy of clinching the Republican presidential nomination following a win Tuesday in the Washington state primary.

The victory -- winning at least 40 of Washington's delegates -- means Trump now has 1,229 of the 1,237 delegates he needs to clinch the GOP nomination, according to CNN estimates. Four more Washington delegates are still to be decided, potentially bumping Trump's total even higher.

Trump will be President and your targeted audience will drop back down from the high water mark today of 2 or 3, to yourself again. The next 8 years will go down as the Trump Era.

More insults and still nothing to backup your claim, and you close your not so artful dodge by posting Trump's delegate total. Sad.

I assume the same Joey Bunch who works for the Denver Post, with whom you claimed to have conversed on this subject wrote the following:

Donald Trump editorializes on Colorado in The Wall Street Journal
[SIZE="4"]By Joey Bunch
The Denver Post[/SIZE]

[Excerpted, click on title to access the entire article.]

Jimmy Sengenberger, the conservative radio personality who organized the rally in support of the state party, his own editorial thoughts on Trump’s most recent Colorado tirade. In an e-mail, he told me this:

“While Mr. Trump makes a fair case for changing the system to a primary, it is simply inaccurate for him to say that voters were, in essence, disenfranchised by the State GOP ‘canceling a vote.’ In fact, every Republican had the opportunity to show up and vote at caucus for higher-level assemblies in literally thousands of individual elections on March 1. That election was not ‘canceled.'”The only difference between this year and previous caucus years is that this time the elites at the RNC decided to force a rules change on states like Colorado to establish a binding straw poll, when we had always had preference polls that would not bind delegates to the National convention. That’s why we didn’t have a straw poll.

“I went to my precinct caucus. I got elected to the State Convention. I made my case for national delegate to those voters who were also elected to represent their local communities at the state convention. And I was elected an alternate delegate to the convention. You can’t tell me those votes didn’t happen, that I didn’t earn those votes.

“Nearly 4,000 eligible voters attended the state Convention last Saturday. The way Trump presents it, 4,000 people gathered together as a group beforehand, decided to create a Cruz Cabal, and executed a yuge conspiracy which resulted in a delegate sweep for Cruz and seven alternates for Trump. I don’t see how that’s practical.”

I don't blame you for wanting to change the subject. I would too, but I would still not let that prevent me from admitting that I was wrong if I were in your shoes.

[TheRealThing]

More insults and still nothing to backup your claim, and you close your not so artful dodge by posting Trump's delegate total. Sad.

I assume the same Joey Bunch who works for the Denver Post, with whom you claimed to have conversed on this subject wrote the following:



I don't blame you for wanting to change the subject. I would too, but I would still not let that prevent me from admitting that I was wrong if I were in your shoes.

There now see, this has been somewhat therapeutic for you after all. You have taken the first step toward recovery in admitting that you change the subject in order to impress your imaginary audience. If you're saying your source refutes mine, I concede that but if you're going there you must also admit that the reverse of the situation is true as well.

There is an awful lot of information to be had on the internet, Bill O'Reilly has gone to the extent of saying that upwards of 70% of said information is false. In any case, your obsession with the identity of the Republican nominee causes you to continue in daily displays of the particular psychoneurosis of which you have been afflicted. I have dropped names as you say, and pointed out the millions of voters who swayed this nomination cycle with their votes, thereby rejecting the wisdom and control of the Party machine. (Hence your irrational rejection of the voters role in the primary process in the first place, and the grossly inflated impact of your assertion of what a few unbound delegates might have had on the eventual nominee) This was done in an effort to contrast your caustically prophetic fears with the views of others. But I will tell you this, I will consider the opinion of Lou Dobbs or perhaps even John Bolton against your rantings anytime. In your mind, all those who have voted for and endorsed Mr Trump are in some way deficient, while you on the other hand are always right.

About Mr Bunch, if you seriously cannot listen to and understand the plain English of his monologue supports exactly what I have said, then you are not going to impress that imaginary audience of your delusion, a task all of whom I believe, would have no problem mastering accurately. Has it occurred to you that all one has to do is listen to his statements on the video? That is the one self evident reference that I have made from the starting point in this grand spectacle of your quest for self worth, and that is not open to your particular manipulative interpretation. I spoke with him as I have said, and your accusation to the contrary is just the latest example of your lack of class and character.

I will derive much satisfaction watching Mr Trump disprove all of your baseless conjectures of doom during his Presidency, knowing the memory of your statements here will endure much longer than has your credibility.

[Hoot Gibson]

There now see, this has been somewhat therapeutic for you after all. You have taken the first step toward recovery in admitting that you change the subject in order to impress your imaginary audience. If you're saying your source refutes mine, I concede that but if you're going there you must also admit that the reverse of the situation is true as well.

There is an awful lot of information to be had on the internet, Bill O'Reilly has gone to the extent of saying that upwards of 70% of said information is false. In any case, your obsession with the identity of the Republican nominee causes you to continue in daily displays of the particular psychoneurosis of which you have been afflicted. I have dropped names as you say, and pointed out the millions of voters who swayed this nomination cycle with their votes, thereby rejecting the wisdom and control of the Party machine. (Hence your irrational rejection of the voters role in the primary process in the first place, and the grossly inflated impact of your assertion that, unbound delegates, they might have on the eventual nominee) This was done in an effort to contrast your caustically prophetic fears with the views of others. But I will tell you this, I will consider the opinion of Lou Dobbs or perhaps even John Bolton against your rantings anytime. In your mind, all those who have voted for and endorsed Mr Trump are in some way deficient, while you on the other hand are always right.

About Mr Bunch, if you seriously cannot listen to and understand the plain English of his monologue supports exactly what I have said, then you are not going to impress that imaginary audience of your delusion, a task all of whom I believe, would have no problem mastering accurately. Has it occurred to you that all one has to do is listen to his statements on the video? That is the one self evident reference that I have made from the starting point in this grand spectacle of your quest for self worth, and that is not open to your particular manipulative interpretation. I spoke with him as I have said, and your accusation to the contrary is just the latest example of your lack of class and character.

I will derive much satisfaction watching Mr Trump disprove all of your baseless conjectures of doom during his Presidency, knowing the memory of your statements here will endure much longer than has your credibility.

I have reviewed this debate from the beginning. You do not even understand the material that you posted, so how can I expect you to understand what I posted? Between the two of us (you and me), we have obliterated your position with the links that we have posted.

If you ever discover the cause of your recent inability to comprehend what you read, then please take time to reread what we each have written on this subject and then hang your head in shame.

[TheRealThing]

I have reviewed this debate from the beginning. You do not even understand the material that you posted, so how can I expect you to understand what I posted? Between the two of us (you and me), we have obliterated your position with the links that we have posted.

If you ever discover the cause of your recent inability to comprehend what you read, then please take time to reread what we each have written on this subject and then hang your head in shame.

The only thing I feel, or will feel any shame about is in having any part in this whole unfortunate kerfuffle in the first place. But I have no doubt that you have spent hours upon hours reviewing the multiple thread, on going argument, (you steered things out of any form of debate format as soon as you realized others on here were not to be influenced with your exhibition of neurotic frothing about).

I saw today where Trump has already crossed the delegate threshold.

BBC

"The US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has reached the number of delegates needed to secure the party's presidential nomination.

In North Dakota on Thursday, he thanked 15 unbound delegates from the state who he said "got us right over the top".
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36392084

After all your convulsive eye-gouging, Trump breezed through to become the presumptive nominee with ease. So, it is as I have said from the git-go. The people having chosen, and, (barring indictment) will elect either Hillary Clinton or Donald J. Trump to the White House this fall. Absolutely no contest for all but the president of the 'cut your own nose off to spite your face club'.

[Hoot Gibson]

The only thing I feel, or will feel any shame about is in having any part in this whole unfortunate kerfuffle in the first place. But I have no doubt that you have spent hours upon hours reviewing the multiple thread, on going argument, (you steered things out of any form of debate format as soon as you realized others on here were not to be influenced with your exhibition of neurotic frothing about).

I saw today where Trump has already crossed the delegate threshold.

BBC

"The US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has reached the number of delegates needed to secure the party's presidential nomination.

In North Dakota on Thursday, he thanked 15 unbound delegates from the state who he said "got us right over the top".
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36392084

After all your convulsive eye-gouging, Trump breezed through to become the presumptive nominee with ease. So, it is as I have said from the git-go. The people having chosen, and, (barring indictment) will elect either Hillary Clinton or Donald J. Trump to the White House this fall. Absolutely no contest for all but the president of the 'cut your own nose off to spite your face club'.

Repeating yourself over and over will not turn a lie into the truth. You were wrong and refused to admit your mistake. A unanimous Trump win will not change that fact.

[Sci-Fi]

Guys, look. I'll say, I've seen you exchange barbs here. Somebody like Donald Trump is not worth getting into this kind of argument over. Both of you leave a lot of detail in your points. Which is good. I'm supporting Hillary and I'll admit, she's not worth defending to this extent. Neither are. They're both crooks.

[Hoot Gibson]

Guys, look. I'll say, I've seen you exchange barbs here. Somebody like Donald Trump is not worth getting into this kind of argument over. Both of you leave a lot of detail in your points. Which is good. I'm supporting Hillary and I'll admit, she's not worth defending to this extent. Neither are. They're both crooks.

Only one of us one defending Donald Trump because you are right, Trump is not worth defending. As for both candidates being crooks, you may be right, but the most crooked Department of Justice in U.S. history is only working to keep one candidate out of prison. If Trump is a criminal, then at least he is covering his legal costs with his own money - and that is the closest thing you will see to a defense of Trump from me.

Neither candidate is worth defending and neither candidate is worthy of anybody's active support.

[TheRealThing]

Guys, look. I'll say, I've seen you exchange barbs here. Somebody like Donald Trump is not worth getting into this kind of argument over. Both of you leave a lot of detail in your points. Which is good. I'm supporting Hillary and I'll admit, she's not worth defending to this extent. Neither are. They're both crooks.

Easy there Sci-Fi. You're a mere post or two away from making Hoot's bad list. There are only two possibilities if that happens, you'll be declared a liar, stupid or just plain wrong; Or acquiesce to his view.

You do recognize the likely truth of it though. Hillary will not be prosecuted by this White House, so this fall it will be a choice between her or Trump. I'm voting Trump because I believe between the two he most closely represents my values. You're voting for Hillary and not that I can understand why, but that is still your stated position and I can respect that.

[Hoot Gibson]

Easy there Sci-Fi. You're a mere post or two away from making Hoot's bad list. There are only two possibilities if that happens, you'll be declared a liar, stupid or just plain wrong; Or acquiesce to his view.

You do recognize the likely truth of it though. Hillary will not be prosecuted by this White House, so this fall it will be a choice between her or Trump. I'm voting Trump because I believe between the two he most closely represents my values. You're voting for Hillary and not that I can understand why, but that is still your stated position and I can respect that.

The pattern continues. I criticize Trump and you personally attack me.

I don't intend to stop criticizing Trump, so I guess I will continue to be the object of your obsessive, irrational hatred.

[TheRealThing]

The pattern continues. I criticize Trump and you personally attack me.

I don't intend to stop criticizing Trump, so I guess I will continue to be the object of your obsessive, irrational hatred.

That's fine, but at least be original enough to think up your own material. You well know, the obsession lies with you and Donald Trump as I have pointed to pretty often lately. And did you not just admit exactly that? "The pattern continues. I criticize Trump"

Truly a moment in autobiographical candor if I ever saw one. :Thumbs:

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
:Thumbs:

[Hoot Gibson]

That's fine, but at least be original enough to think up your own material. You well know, the obsession lies with you and Donald Trump as I have pointed to pretty often lately. And did you not just admit exactly that? "The pattern continues. I criticize Trump"

Truly a moment in autobiographical candor if I ever saw one. :Thumbs:

Candor is something you know nothing about, loser. Not all supporters of Trump are cult followers, but you certainly fit that bill. Americans have a tradition of criticizing and holding politicians accountable for their actions. You have joined the lunatic fringe. Despots treasure followers like you.

[TheRealThing]

Candor is something you know nothing about, loser. Not all supporters of Trump are cult followers, but you certainly fit that bill. Americans have a tradition of criticizing and holding politicians accountable for their actions. You have joined the lunatic fringe. Despots treasure followers like you.

This nation is in grave straits and must be governed. We have on the one hand a man who has promised to return us to the tried and true path of the past and shows courage of character enough to do so. We have on the other, a misguided shrew of Shakespearian proportion, who has sworn an oath to complete the task that Obama has started. Not exactly all that hard a choice to understand now is it?

The lucid among us see that forces made up of the self serving, the takers/no-works, the sexually depraved, the "despisers of those that are good" 2Tim 3:3 (KJV), and the generally morally corrupt and otherwise misguided, have coalesced under the Democrat flag to finish the job and achieve the ultimate victory over everything we consider to be normal. The split between the lucid and the group I just profiled is surprisingly close numbers wise.

Then you have the lunatic fringe you just mentioned. Those are the ones who ignore the lessons of the past and the horrors of the present such as war, the millions of refugees on the march, and Venezuelans eating out of garbage cans. They think this is the time, owing to wild eyed conspiracies and faux righteous indignations, to become conscientious objectors and vote 3rd party or abstain altogether. No way to run a republic. You know, if I'd been on the Titanic I'd have been mad, and I'd have been as terrified as everybody else no doubt was; That night would not have been the time to say no to a rescue ship if it had been there. Even if that rescue ship may have looked derelict and rusted, I'd have hop up on that bad boy and saved my life. Donald J. Trump may have a few chinks in his armor, and I'm certain he has his share of flaws, but he offers at least a chance at rescue.

You are going to have two viable choices and two choices only this fall, Hillary or Trump. Any rational person knows a vote for an outside candidate amounts to a vote for Hillary and a decision to stay aboard the Titanic. Conservatives who vote for anybody other than Trump are the 'lunatic fringe.'

[Hoot Gibson]

This nation is in grave straits and must be governed. We have on the one hand a man who has promised to return us to the tried and true path of the past and shows courage of character enough to do so. We have on the other, a misguided shrew of Shakespearian proportion, who has sworn an oath to complete the task that Obama has started. Not exactly all that hard a choice to understand now is it?

The lucid among us see that forces made up of the self serving, the takers/no-works, the sexually depraved, the "despisers of those that are good" 2Tim 3:3 (KJV), and the generally morally corrupt and otherwise misguided, have coalesced under the Democrat flag to finish the job and achieve the ultimate victory over everything we consider to be normal. The split between the lucid and the group I just profiled is surprisingly close numbers wise.

Then you have the lunatic fringe you just mentioned. Those are the ones who ignore the lessons of the past and the horrors of the present such as war, the millions of refugees on the march, and Venezuelans eating out of garbage cans. They think this is the time, owing to wild eyed conspiracies and faux righteous indignations, to become conscientious objectors and vote 3rd party or abstain altogether. No way to run a republic. You know, if I'd been on the Titanic I'd have been mad, and I'd have been as terrified as everybody else no doubt was; That night would not have been the time to say no to a rescue ship if it had been there. Even if that rescue ship may have looked derelict and rusted, I'd have hop up on that bad boy and saved my life. Donald J. Trump may have a few chinks in his armor, and I'm certain he has his share of flaws, but he offers at least a chance at rescue.

You are going to have two viable choices and two choices only this fall, Hillary or Trump. Any rational person knows a vote for an outside candidate amounts to a vote for Hillary and a decision to stay aboard the Titanic. Conservatives who vote for anybody other than Trump are the 'lunatic fringe.'

Nice. You have taken a break from your non-stop barrage from issuing insults to quote scripture. Good for you. You have earned a break. :Thumbs:

Donald Trump has no armor, with or without chinks. Donald Trump has a very thin skin and Hillary's campaign has already begun exploiting that weakness. Trump is also running very low on money and I have pointed out elsewhere, most of the media have turned on him, which was very predictable. Earned media is no substitute for cash when 80 percent of the national media support your opponent.

My guess is that the RNC told Trump to back out of the debate with Bernie Sanders and they will continue to impose more discipline on his campaign. When you are dependent on somebody else's money to finance your campaign, then you cannot ignore the demands of your financiers. The RNC destroyed Bob Dole's chances to win, IMO, by pressuring him to stay on script.

[TheRealThing]

Nice. You have taken a break from your non-stop barrage from issuing insults to quote scripture. Good for you. You have earned a break. :Thumbs:

Donald Trump has no armor, with or without chinks. Donald Trump has a very thin skin and Hillary's campaign has already begun exploiting that weakness. Trump is also running very low on money and I have pointed out elsewhere, most of the media have turned on him, which was very predictable. Earned media is no substitute for cash when 80 percent of the national media support your opponent.

My guess is that the RNC told Trump to back out of the debate with Bernie Sanders and they will continue to impose more discipline on his campaign. When you are dependent on somebody else's money to finance your campaign, then you cannot ignore the demands of your financiers. The RNC destroyed Bob Dole's chances to win, IMO, by pressuring him to stay on script.

And that is the problem with arguing with somebody like you. Being right is all you care about, even if you're not right. It is mostly about maintaining your rep, and nurturing your intellectual mystic with you. That's why you go ape when you're up against the ropes. I don't care if I lose a debate point, nobody's perfect. Even men I consider to be great far beyond the norm are not right 100% of the time. And as you point out, Scripture warns the saved about the pitfalls of debate, arguing; And yet, we are to withstand evil. It is a tightrope walk and one I choose to handle in the manner I have on here.

To me, integrity does not mean it's okay for Mr Trump's political opponents to malign his character, ascribing all manner of black hearted speculative surmising to his intent. None of which can be proven. On the other hand, Hillary as I have said, is literally an open book, or in her case library would be a much more apt depiction. If one has truth on his side, just saying it out in the open air is powerful. Thus the import of the First Amendment, and the incredible gift of insight the founding fathers shared. In any case, it was not okay for Richard M. Nixon to eaves drop on his political opponents, and it is not okay to use deceit dressed up as patriotism to manipulate an election, supposedly to effect an outcome for good.

If you can't or won't see that that is the real issue we face, and you'd rather minimize the existential threat of it down to a spitting match, then you can't really say you care about the outcome from where I sit. As far as your assault on my spiritual sted, I feel sorry for you. If you have so much as scratched the surface, you know that is the quintessential example of God's warning not to judge other people. Occasionally I do cite Scripture, as It is the ultimate source. If one can say that speaking the truth out into the open air is powerful, how much more so to speak out Scripture? It is after all, God's own Breath, is it not? Scripture has factual authority over everything from the state of men (who were made in His image) before their God, to the world systems of finance, geopolitics, national and local governments, and even the very workings of the universe and should always override "Mother Jones" and the opinions of men if you ask me. Not the converse, which is to see men redefine, repackage, rename, and then re-legislate God's moral precepts in the image of men.

I will be happy to back you 100% when you're right, as you often are. I cannot do that however, when I think you happen to be slamming the wrong candidate, and this time we are at odds about the candidate. In saying that, feelings of country can be strong. Once a US sitting Vice President by the name of Aaron Burr, shot and mortally wounded the former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in a duel over power. I believe a handshake instead of a bullet would have enshrined them both as American greats. After all their sacrifice and concerns about the common good, both of their lives ended in one way or another that day. The nation lays at stake, let's move on.

[Hoot Gibson]

And that is the problem with arguing with somebody like you. Being right is all you care about, even if you're not right. It is mostly about maintaining your rep, and nurturing your intellectual mystic with you. That's why you go ape when you're up against the ropes. I don't care if I lose a debate point, nobody's perfect. Even men I consider to be great far beyond the norm are not right 100% of the time. And as you point out, Scripture warns the saved about the pitfalls of debate, arguing; And yet, we are to withstand evil. It is a tightrope walk and one I choose to handle in the manner I have on here.

To me, integrity does not mean it's okay for Mr Trump's political opponents to malign his character, ascribing all manner of black hearted speculative surmising to his intent. None of which can be proven. On the other hand, Hillary as I have said, is literally an open book, or in her case library would be a much more apt depiction. If one has truth on his side, just saying it out in the open air is powerful. Thus the import of the First Amendment, and the incredible gift of insight the founding fathers shared. In any case, it was not okay for Richard M. Nixon to eaves drop on his political opponents, and it is not okay to use deceit dressed up as patriotism to manipulate an election, supposedly to effect an outcome for good.

If you can't or won't see that that is the real issue we face, and you'd rather minimize the existential threat of it down to a spitting match, then you can't really say you care about the outcome from where I sit. As far as your assault on my spiritual sted, I feel sorry for you. If you have so much as scratched the surface, you know that is the quintessential example of God's warning not to judge other people. Occasionally I do cite Scripture, as It is the ultimate source. If one can say that speaking the truth out into the open air is powerful, how much more so to speak out Scripture? It is after all, God's own Breath, is it not? Scripture has factual authority over everything from the state of men (who were made in His image) before their God, to the world systems of finance, geopolitics, national and local governments, and even the very workings of the universe and should always override "Mother Jones" and the opinions of men if you ask me. Not the converse, which is to see men redefine, repackage, rename, and then re-legislate God's moral precepts in the image of men.

I will be happy to back you 100% when you're right, as you often are. I cannot do that however, when I think you happen to be slamming the wrong candidate, and this time we are at odds about the candidate. In saying that, feelings of country can be strong. Once a US sitting Vice President by the name of Aaron Burr, shot and mortally wounded the former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in a duel over power. I believe a handshake instead of a bullet would have enshrined them both as American greats. After all their sacrifice and concerns about the common good, both of their lives ended in one way or another that day. The nation lays at stake, let's move on.

Accurately describing Trump's character and drawing attention to his many indiscretions is not maligning his character, just as telling the truth about Obama and accurately highlighting his many illegal and immoral acts was not maligning his character in 2008 and 2012.

Advocating blind allegiance to a candidate and personally attacking that candidate's critics is not a display of integrity. It is, in fact, a display of an integrity deficit.

You have never personally attacked me when I have criticized Obama, Kerry, or Hillary Clinton. The only difference in this election, is that you support Trump and I do not. No amount of writing will make what you are doing right.

[TheRealThing]

Accurately describing Trump's character and drawing attention to his many indiscretions is not maligning his character, just as telling the truth about Obama and accurately highlighting his many illegal and immoral acts was not maligning his character in 2008 and 2012.

Advocating blind allegiance to a candidate and personally attacking that candidate's critics is not a display of integrity. It is, in fact, a display of an integrity deficit.

You have never personally attacked me when I have criticized Obama, Kerry, or Hillary Clinton. The only difference in this election, is that you support Trump and I do not. No amount of writing will make what you are doing right.

Is there an echo in here? What do you think I just said?

What I am doing? What is your suggestion there Hoot? What would you have the voting public do, other than choose between Trump and Clinton? You've gone on and on about Trump, what's your remedy?

[Hoot Gibson]

Is there an echo in here? What do you think I just said?

What I am doing? What is your suggestion there Hoot? What would you have the voting public do, other than choose between Trump and Clinton? You've gone on and on about Trump, what's your remedy?

I do not presume to tell the voting public what to do. All I know is that I will not be voting for either Trump or Hillary. I deserve better. We all do. If we keep voting for bad Republican candidates or bad Democrat candidates, then that is choice we can expect in future elections. Rewarding bad behavior begets more bad behavior.

[RunItUpTheGut]

There is no such thing as a no vote in a battle ground state. You have to choose. It's not an option.
A no vote is a vote for Hillary. You should be labeled a Hillary supporter if you do no vote.

[Hoot Gibson]

There is no such thing as a no vote in a battle ground state. You have to choose. It's not an option.
A no vote is a vote for Hillary. You should be labeled a Hillary supporter if you do no vote.

Isn't it sad that the best reason to vote for Trump that his supporters can muster is, "Because he isn't Hillary?" I will not vote for a liberal Democrat. Ever. That rules out Trump and Hillary. If you believe that my decision to vote against two very bad candidates justifies falsely labeling me as an insult, then go right ahead - but it makes you and other who engage in the same behavior look really small. Settling for bad candidates is what got the GOP and this country in the current mess we find.

[TheRealThing]

I do not presume to tell the voting public what to do. All I know is that I will not be voting for either Trump or Hillary. I deserve better. We all do. If we keep voting for bad Republican candidates or bad Democrat candidates, then that is choice we can expect in future elections. Rewarding bad behavior begets more bad behavior.

Isn't it sad that the best reason to vote for Trump that his supporters can muster is, "Because he isn't Hillary?" I will not vote for a liberal Democrat. Ever. That rules out Trump and Hillary. If you believe that my decision to vote against two very bad candidates justifies falsely labeling me as an insult, then go right ahead - but it makes you and other who engage in the same behavior look really small. Settling for bad candidates is what got the GOP and this country in the current mess we find.

Well now we both know that is not exactly true. And your answer was as I knew it would be, that you don't have an answer; That is, other than finding a nice corner off to its self to go pout in.

The power of this land has always been in the measure of the people's moral conviction. Not in allegiance to some political party whose rules are autonomous and not necessarily in the people's best interest. Candidates who run for office are the reflection of the current society. The more we have turned our backs on God, the more lost we have become. We are off the path. Our system of law based on Godly tenets, nowadays compromised by liberalism, has become a mere will-o-the-wisp of its former self. We have at least 31 different gender indentifications to choose from, a socialist is running very well on the Democrat ticket, and Republicans seem to be just as persuaded by notions of social justice as are the Dems.

But systems and regulations do not a people make. Conscience and spiritual awareness do. However, if you can explain how abstention has a place in a government of and by the people, I'm sure we'd all like to hear. In the meantime, Trump is our best option this time.