[TheRealThing]

That is true, but you also did with the likes of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Do you really think both of these guys are establishment cronies? The establishment can't stand either one of them.

The establishment did like Rubio, but they did not like Cruz and I have posted to that end, yes. I also posted more than once if I recall, that we live in Kentucky. And that being the case, we are more a backwater non-factor in the big picture. I also said that BGR is probably the most unlikely of forums from which to reasonably expect to influence a national race.

[Hoot Gibson]

No see you have to establish the first time I was wrong before you get to say that I'm wrong 'again.'

Are these your words or not? "A large majority of Republicans who voted in primaries and caucuses did not vote for Donald Trump. If, by some miracle of fate, the GOP delegates replace Trump with a strong candidate and a majority of the delegates, who themselves were elected to represent large numbers of other Republicans, unite behind another candidate, then how will the "will of the people" have been thwarted?"

And with deference to what Seger said, my concern here has been to protect the outcome of the primary season. Country should come first, and being truthful don't hurt either.

Yes, those are my words. Fewer than 45 percent of voters in the primaries and caucuses supported Trump and a large number of them were Democrats, like yourself, who voted for Trump in open primaries. So, even if delegates did vote their consciences and replace Trump on the ballot, the will of the majority of Republicans would not be thwarted, because the majority of Republicans never supported Trump in the first place.

This is a factually correct statement, whether you like it or not. If you were so concerned about the primary process, then you should have registered as a Republican and participated yourself.

As for my statement of you being wrong again, you being wrong is a frequent occurrence. I don't need to elaborate. For example, you were wrong, as a registered Democrat who was too busy to even vote in the Republican primary, to offer this conservative unsolicited advice and constant criticism for his voting plans. It was uncalled for and unappreciated.

[WideRight05]

The establishment did like Rubio, but they did not like Cruz and I have posted to that end, yes. I also posted more than once if I recall, that we live in Kentucky. And that being the case, we are more a backwater non-factor in the big picture. I also said that BGR is probably the most unlikely of forums from which to reasonably expect to influence a national race.

They warmed up to Rubio a little bit when all the others went out and it was down to him, Kasich, Cruz, and Trump. Other than the gang of eight, which even Rubio seems to acknowledge was a mistake, Rubio has been excellent. Very strong defender of both life and marriage.

Regarding your other thought, was that in response to my more recent post after Bob Seger posted? Considering that's likely the case, I agree and each one of us on here should be a little more kind to the other.

[Hoot Gibson]

I will also be glad to abide by Bob's suggestion of a truce. I will not initiate any personal attacks as long as none are made against me.

[TheRealThing]

Yes, those are my words. Fewer than 45 percent of voters in the primaries and caucuses supported Trump and a large number of them were Democrats, like yourself, who voted for Trump in open primaries. So, even if delegates did vote their consciences and replace Trump on the ballot, the will of the majority of Republicans would not be thwarted, because the majority of Republicans never supported Trump in the first place.

This is a factually correct statement, whether you like it or not. If you were so concerned about the primary process, then you should have registered as a Republican and participated yourself.

As for my statement of you being wrong again, you being wrong is a frequent occurrence. I don't need to elaborate. For example, you were wrong, as a registered Democrat who was too busy to even vote in the Republican primary, to offer this conservative unsolicited advice and constant criticism for his voting plans. It was uncalled for and unappreciated.

LOL, you can get down off your high horse. I revised my party affiliation in the last local political primary. Whether you like it or not, I was not concerned about the Kentucky Caucuses because I knew it would come down to Trump or Cruz, and though I knew Kentucky would not be much of a factor, I knew I would be happy with Trump or Cruz.

[Hoot Gibson]

LOL, you can get down off your high horse. I revised my party affiliation in the last local political primary. Whether you like it or not, I was not concerned about the Kentucky Caucuses because I knew it would come down to Trump or Cruz, and though I knew Kentucky would not be much of a factor, I knew I would be happy with Trump or Cruz.

How is that any different than me being confident that Hillary Clinton is going to carry the state of Virginia by a comfortable margin and planning to vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot? Why is is okay for you to sit out an election but such a big issue for you that I plan to vote for a conservative third party candidate?

[TheRealThing]

They warmed up to Rubio a little bit when all the others went out and it was down to him, Kasich, Cruz, and Trump. Other than the gang of eight, which even Rubio seems to acknowledge was a mistake, Rubio has been excellent. Very strong defender of both life and marriage.

Regarding your other thought, was that in response to my more recent post after Bob Seger posted? Considering that's likely the case, I agree and each one of us on here should be a little more kind to the other.

I was reminded of my statements to that end by what Seger said, yes. Just pointing out, I said it on a number of occasions at the start of the primary season when things started going acidic.

[TheRealThing]

How is that any different than me being confident that Hillary Clinton is going to carry the state of Virginia by a comfortable margin and planning to vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot? Why is is okay for you to sit out an election but such a big issue for you that I pan to vote for a conservative third party candidate?

There is a difference in missing a primary when all the candidates are pro-life and agree on so many other issues as well, and voting in a Presidential election. I don't think it was okay, but it was an oversight that until this election did not seem all that big a deal.

But if somehow you already know that Virginia is lost to Hillary, I suppose at that point it boils down to principle. I couldn't do it because I know what she'll do if elected. I believe it still matters what we do at a personal level even if the outcome is hopeless. But even if I lived in Virginia, I would still have been allowed to vote for Cruz or Trump or whoever the Republican candidate was to be in the actual election. I corrected my registration so that in the future I won't be denied in the caucus again. You can hardly say that my missing primary vote is a vote for Hillary though.

I didn't make a big deal of your voting 3rd party when Barack ran, I just would not have done the same. You know my position, I am not at all convinced that Trump will roll over on conservatives. If he is elected and if he does roll over on us I will happily admit it. But like I have said, I believe it to be extremely likely that abortions will explode if Hillary gains the White House. That alone sets him apart in my book.

[The Urban Sombrero]

There is a difference in missing a primary when all the candidates are pro-life and agree on so many other issues as well, and voting in a Presidential election. I don't think it was okay, but it was an oversight that until this election did not seem all that big a deal.

But if somehow you already know that Virginia is lost to Hillary, I suppose at that point it boils down to principle. I couldn't do it because I know what she'll do if elected. I believe it still matters what we do at a personal level even if the outcome is hopeless. But even if I lived in Virginia, I would still have been allowed to vote for Cruz or Trump or whoever the Republican candidate was to be in the actual election. I corrected my registration so that in the future I won't be denied in the caucus again. You can hardly say that my missing primary vote is a vote for Hillary though.

I didn't make a big deal of your voting 3rd party when Barack ran, I just would not have done the same. You know my position, I am not at all convinced that Trump will roll over on conservatives. If he is elected and if he does roll over on us I will happily admit it. But like I have said, I believe it to be extremely likely that abortions will explode if Hillary gains the White House. That alone sets him apart in my book.

If Roe v. Wade is currently SCOTUS precedent, and has been for over 40 years, what is your reasoning for believing abortions will skyrocket if Hillary Clinton is elected?

[TheRealThing]

If Roe v. Wade is currently SCOTUS precedent, and has been for over 40 years, what is your reasoning for believing abortions will skyrocket if Hillary Clinton is elected?

In 1947 SCOTUS ruled errantly that the intent of the concept of the separation of Church and State was meant to protect the US Government from intrusion by the Church.

In 1973 SCOTUS ruled errantly that women could legally obtain abortions based on a ridiculous connection to the right of privacy.

IMO both of these edicts have been disastrous to the well being of the United States. Because of the 1947 ruling, we were forced inevitably, to deny the authority on which our laws are based. Christian principles of morality. Enforcing the law has since therefore, become largely subjective and optional. Since the 1973 ruling, and owning to the combination of cradle to grave welfare and a notable slide in law enforcement, extra marital births are through the roof. Why? Because men no longer need worry about footing the bill for rearing them, much less about marrying their mothers.

Explode obviously being somewhat dependent upon one's perspective, Hillary has vowed to see to it that no force infringes on issues of women's health. We (the American public) were told contingent to Roe, that abortions from that day forward were to be, "safe legal and rare, and would happen only in cases of incest, rape or danger to mother." Instead and very nearly 60 million abortions later, the slaughter continues unabated. We should be working to reign in the butchery, but all I've heard from Hillary are vows to protect the practice.

Donald Trump insists that he is opposed to abortion, and not that I know how much he can do to limit the practice, but you have one vowing to continue the horror and one vowing to work to set limits.

[Hoot Gibson]

There is a difference in missing a primary when all the candidates are pro-life and agree on so many other issues as well, and voting in a Presidential election. I don't think it was okay, but it was an oversight that until this election did not seem all that big a deal.

But if somehow you already know that Virginia is lost to Hillary, I suppose at that point it boils down to principle. I couldn't do it because I know what she'll do if elected. I believe it still matters what we do at a personal level even if the outcome is hopeless. But even if I lived in Virginia, I would still have been allowed to vote for Cruz or Trump or whoever the Republican candidate was to be in the actual election. I corrected my registration so that in the future I won't be denied in the caucus again. You can hardly say that my missing primary vote is a vote for Hillary though.

I didn't make a big deal of your voting 3rd party when Barack ran, I just would not have done the same. You know my position, I am not at all convinced that Trump will roll over on conservatives. If he is elected and if he does roll over on us I will happily admit it. But like I have said, I believe it to be extremely likely that abortions will explode if Hillary gains the White House. That alone sets him apart in my book.

I never voted for a third party when Obama ran. I voted for McCain and I voted for Romney. I never said otherwise. In fact, I have explained repeatedly that I have held my nose and voted for Dole, McCain, and Romney and then resolved to never again give my vote to somebody who does not earn it.

Voting always boils down to principle. I don't understand how a pro-life conservative could ever believe facilitating the nomination of Donald Trump by failing to vote against him was okay. Out of all 17 Republican primary candidates, Trump is the only one who has a long history of donating to liberal, pro-abortion Democrats. Trump has flip-flopped and been caught lying so many times, ignoring his past deeds and accepting his word that he is now pro-life and will remain pro-life once elected is just not good enough for me.

Trump only trailed Hillary by 3 points in the last Virginia poll, but there is no way that he will do better here than Romney did. The state now has crooked Democrat, Terry McCauliffe, as its governor, and thousands of convicted felons recently had their voting rights automatically restored. I will be surprised if Trump does not lose Virginia by double digits.

Regardless of the politics here, I will never vote for a presidential candidate who I don't believe is fit for the office - but I will vote for the most qualified conservative candidate on my ballot.

[TheRealThing]

I never voted for a third party when Obama ran. I voted for McCain and I voted for Romney. I never said otherwise. In fact, I have explained repeatedly that I have held my nose and voted for Dole, McCain, and Romney and then resolved to never again give my vote to somebody who does not earn it.

Voting always boils down to principle. I don't understand how a pro-life conservative could ever believe facilitating the nomination of Donald Trump by failing to vote against him was okay. Out of all 17 Republican primary candidates, Trump is the only one who has a long history of donating to liberal, pro-abortion Democrats. Trump has flip-flopped and been caught lying so many times, ignoring his past deeds and accepting his word that he is now pro-life and will remain pro-life once elected is just not good enough for me.

Trump only trailed Hillary by 3 points in the last Virginia poll, but there is no way that he will do better here than Romney did. The state now has crooked Democrat, Terry McCauliffe, as its governor, and thousands of convicted felons recently had their voting rights automatically restored. I will be surprised if Trump does not lose Virginia by double digits.

Regardless of the politics here, I will never vote for a presidential candidate who I don't believe is fit for the office - but I will vote for the most qualified conservative candidate on my ballot.

You asked me the difference between skipping the Kentucky Primary and voting 3rd party in the general. How you voted differed from the case you laid out in support of voting for a 3rd party candidate, but like I said, I didn't give you any grief about it then and wouldn't have done so this time just on that basis.

But things have not been restricted to that basis. You've been running a campaign against the presumptive Republican nominee right here on BGR. I have disagreed with your methods and many of your conclusions because they require one to accept as fact that Mr Trump has been lying about his transition into the conservative view. I say there is no way to prove that, this side of a Trump Presidency. And since many if not all conservatives must make some kind of similar journey to the light in any event, and given the certainty of the alternative this time around, we must give him a chance to do what he promises.

I have gone on to cite people who are widely respected in conservative circles who I believe agree with my position, and as I have attempted to point out, there is no shortage of those of that mindset. Nobody on the planet denies that one of only two people will step into the Oval Office next January. There is no other possibility in the realm of the remotely plausible. That being the case, if you can say with a shred of honesty that you don't understand how a pro-life conservative could support Trump, I can say the following whole heartedly. I do not understand how a pro-life conservative could or would, take the time to campaign extensively and frankly aggressively, against the only candidate who has any chance whatever to win, and who represents that pro-life conservative's stated positions.

I'm not at all surprised that both sides of the aisle coalesced to oppose Trump in what I had predicted to be an unholy alliance, but even I underestimated the intensity and the spectacle of it. Republicans should unite behind the presumptive nominee, and in my view given current events, so should the Democrats. Our quality of life and the health of our country is at stake, and in that light I believe this to be the time for patriots to stand up and make service to their nation the reality, rather than campaign rhetoric. Ted Cruz should offer his considerable gifts in service to the people, and throw his hat in the VP ring to heal the national rift and provide the guidance he said he was all about a couple of months back. That rift BTW, is as real at the national level as it is on this site. But thankfully, I hear more and more of Trump's one time staunch opponents, now publicly recognizing the actual singularity of choice with which America is faced.

[WideRight05]

You asked me the difference between skipping the Kentucky Primary and voting 3rd party in the general. How you voted differed from the case you laid out in support of voting for a 3rd party candidate, but like I said, I didn't give you any grief about it then and wouldn't have done so this time just on that basis.

But things have not been restricted to that basis. You've been running a campaign against the presumptive Republican nominee right here on BGR. I have disagreed with your methods and many of your conclusions because they require one to accept as fact that Mr Trump has been lying about his transition into the conservative view. I say there is no way to prove that, this side of a Trump Presidency. And since many if not all conservatives must make some kind of similar journey to the light in any event, and given the certainty of the alternative this time around, we must give him a chance to do what he promises.

I have gone on to cite people who are widely respected in conservative circles who I believe agree with my position, and as I have attempted to point out, there is no shortage of those of that mindset. Nobody on the planet denies that one of only two people will step into the Oval Office next January. There is no other possibility in the realm of the remotely plausible. That being the case, if you can say with a shred of honesty that you don't understand how a pro-life conservative could support Trump, I can say the following whole heartedly. I do not understand how a pro-life conservative could or would, take the time to campaign extensively and frankly aggressively, against the only candidate who has any chance whatever to win, and who represents that pro-life conservative's stated positions.

I'm not at all surprised that both sides of the aisle coalesced to oppose Trump in what I had predicted to be an unholy alliance, but even I underestimated the intensity and the spectacle of it. Republicans should unite behind the presumptive nominee, and in my view given current events, so should the Democrats. Our quality of life and the health of our country is at stake, and in that light I believe this to be the time for patriots to stand up and make service to their nation the reality, rather than campaign rhetoric. Ted Cruz should offer his considerable gifts in service to the people, and throw his hat in the VP ring to heal the national rift and provide the guidance he said he was all about a couple of months back. That rift BTW, is as real at the national level as it is on this site. But thankfully, I hear more and more of Trump's one time staunch opponents, now publicly recognizing the actual singularity of choice with which America is faced.

In the beginning did you expect to see Trump being opposed by those who were anti-establishment? As different as you, Hoot, and I have been this election cycle, one thing the three of us having in common on a deep end - is that we all oppose the establishment and what they have done. We all agree that we have been represented by leaders who mostly have backed down or caved on several important issues.

At first I thought that as Trump moved along, even though he was running against some of the other guys I thought he would unite with Cruz, Rubio, Paul, and the ones that were fighting against the Jeb Bush's and Lindsey Graham's of the world. Instead, he has not just destroyed a relationship with the establishment, he has destroyed a relationship with many others. Had, say, Marco Rubio won, I think the election would have been intense but I don't think Cruz or Paul would have had much trouble rallying around him. I almost expected to see this kind of scenario with Bush or Graham not supporting the candidate if a non-establishment candidate won, and if this were just a few members of the establishment rebelling in fear of losing their power I would be understanding.

Trump, with the way he handled himself in the primary especially through his Twitter posts, put himself in a deep hole when it comes to his relationships with some of the others in the GOP. Trump has no one to blame but himself when it comes to how this party has become so divided.

The GOP has made some huge gains in recent years. Having 247 seats in the House, 54 seats in the Senate, 24 states under full GOP control in terms of the legislatures, this is the best position the party has been in at least during my lifetime. Given the way the scenario is looking right now, it wouldn't be surprising to see the Democrats get some huge gains coming up in part because of Donald Trump and in part because of some of the governors pussing on some key issues. I just can't see Cruz wanting to put his name in the VP slot because of the relationship between him and Trump and the potential failure of this presidency given that he has the shot of potentially winning the presidential primary in a future campaign.

Cruz has been offering his gifts and continued to take major stands in the Senate since the primaries ended, as has Rand Paul.

[TheRealThing]

In the beginning did you expect to see Trump being opposed by those who were anti-establishment? As different as you, Hoot, and I have been this election cycle, one thing the three of us having in common on a deep end - is that we all oppose the establishment and what they have done. We all agree that we have been represented by leaders who mostly have backed down or caved on several important issues.

At first I thought that as Trump moved along, even though he was running against some of the other guys I thought he would unite with Cruz, Rubio, Paul, and the ones that were fighting against the Jeb Bush's and Lindsey Graham's of the world. Instead, he has not just destroyed a relationship with the establishment, he has destroyed a relationship with many others. Had, say, Marco Rubio won, I think the election would have been intense but I don't think Cruz or Paul would have had much trouble rallying around him. I almost expected to see this kind of scenario with Bush or Graham not supporting the candidate if a non-establishment candidate won, and if this were just a few members of the establishment rebelling in fear of losing their power I would be understanding.

Trump, with the way he handled himself in the primary especially through his Twitter posts, put himself in a deep hole when it comes to his relationships with some of the others in the GOP. Trump has no one to blame but himself when it comes to how this party has become so divided.

The GOP has made some huge gains in recent years. Having 247 seats in the House, 54 seats in the Senate, 24 states under full GOP control in terms of the legislatures, this is the best position the party has been in at least during my lifetime. Given the way the scenario is looking right now, it wouldn't be surprising to see the Democrats get some huge gains coming up in part because of Donald Trump and in part because of some of the governors pussing on some key issues. I just can't see Cruz wanting to put his name in the VP slot because of the relationship between him and Trump and the potential failure of this presidency given that he has the shot of potentially winning the presidential primary in a future campaign.

Cruz has been offering his gifts and continued to take major stands in the Senate since the primaries ended, as has Rand Paul.

The GOP is in a very good position as compared to 2008. The same voting base which was responsible for the sweeping GOP victories since that time have now placed their fortunes with Donald Trump for this Presidential season. As of this moment, I do not accept the gloomy down ticket outlook for the GOP being put out there. It would seem to me that a patriot would be more interested with the immediate fortunes of his country, than his own political fortunes. If Cruz did join the ticket, I believe his motives would then be seen in that light and the people would not hold his commitment to serve his nation against him.

[Hoot Gibson]

You asked me the difference between skipping the Kentucky Primary and voting 3rd party in the general. How you voted differed from the case you laid out in support of voting for a 3rd party candidate, but like I said, I didn't give you any grief about it then and wouldn't have done so this time just on that basis.

But things have not been restricted to that basis. You've been running a campaign against the presumptive Republican nominee right here on BGR. I have disagreed with your methods and many of your conclusions because they require one to accept as fact that Mr Trump has been lying about his transition into the conservative view. I say there is no way to prove that, this side of a Trump Presidency. And since many if not all conservatives must make some kind of similar journey to the light in any event, and given the certainty of the alternative this time around, we must give him a chance to do what he promises.

I have gone on to cite people who are widely respected in conservative circles who I believe agree with my position, and as I have attempted to point out, there is no shortage of those of that mindset. Nobody on the planet denies that one of only two people will step into the Oval Office next January. There is no other possibility in the realm of the remotely plausible. That being the case, if you can say with a shred of honesty that you don't understand how a pro-life conservative could support Trump, I can say the following whole heartedly. I do not understand how a pro-life conservative could or would, take the time to campaign extensively and frankly aggressively, against the only candidate who has any chance whatever to win, and who represents that pro-life conservative's stated positions.

I'm not at all surprised that both sides of the aisle coalesced to oppose Trump in what I had predicted to be an unholy alliance, but even I underestimated the intensity and the spectacle of it. Republicans should unite behind the presumptive nominee, and in my view given current events, so should the Democrats. Our quality of life and the health of our country is at stake, and in that light I believe this to be the time for patriots to stand up and make service to their nation the reality, rather than campaign rhetoric. Ted Cruz should offer his considerable gifts in service to the people, and throw his hat in the VP ring to heal the national rift and provide the guidance he said he was all about a couple of months back. That rift BTW, is as real at the national level as it is on this site. But thankfully, I hear more and more of Trump's one time staunch opponents, now publicly recognizing the actual singularity of choice with which America is faced.

You are a horse's ass, a liar, and a hypocrite, TRT. I will not miss you after I exit this website today. Your personal attacks against me because you seem to be under the delusion that you are Mr. Donald Trump are the only reasons that the Case Against Donald Trump is currently the 8th most widely viewed thread ever in this forum.

Personally, I lost most of my interest in this campaign when Cruz and Kasich suspended their campaigns. My decision not to support a totally corrupt and morally bankrupt candidate was made long before Trump was left standing alone as a presumptive nominee. At that point, there was no suspense left. Either Trump will lose to an extraordinarily weak opponent or he will beat his opponent and become one of the worst presidents in history. Either way, our nation will lose in November and will face a very bleak four years.

Now, you may resume your long, boring posts, peppered with scripture and hypocritical exhortations for others to stand on principles that you do not follow, without anybody pointing out your hypocrisy. Happy days are here again for you, I suppose.

[WideRight05]

The GOP is in a very good position as compared to 2008. The same voting base which was responsible for the sweeping GOP victories since that time have now placed their fortunes with Donald Trump for this Presidential season. As of this moment, I do not accept the gloomy down ticket outlook for the GOP being put out there. It would seem to me that a patriot would be more interested with the immediate fortunes of his country, than his own political fortunes. If Cruz did join the ticket, I believe his motives would then be seen in that light and the people would not hold his commitment to serve his nation against him.

The GOP didn't win all those seats because they had an overwhelming turnout. They won them because the Democrats had a poor turnout due to the lack of enthusiasm behind Barack Obama. You could very well use the argument that this same base was also the one that elected Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the Republicans have blown a grand opportunity. With that being said, Trump needs the a vast majority of the base behind him to win and, as I mentioned in the prior post, the divide in this party is so deep in large part because of his antics on Twitter.

That wasn't the main point of my post though. My contention, see paragraphs 1-3, was about Trump being opposed by so many Republicans that, just like you, Hoot, and I, were fed up with the establishment and eager for a candidate to pull through that would actually take a stand on something. You never had any problems with Ted Cruz until he ran against Trump. I don't question his patriotism one bit, regardless of what decision he makes about the VP. With that being said, it wouldn't be a good fit. Trump will not work well with somebody who would challenge him, and Cruz would challenge him.

All I want for Christmas is a Ted Cruz nomination!

So here's my novel idea. Why not let the conservative have another stint at the helm? I mean, if he does anywhere near as well as Reagan, it will be roll out he barrel time. The mere thought of a Ted Cruz Presidency sends Lieberals writhing in fits of neurologic apoplexia.

[TheRealThing]

The GOP didn't win all those seats because they had an overwhelming turnout. They won them because the Democrats had a poor turnout due to the lack of enthusiasm behind Barack Obama. You could very well use the argument that this same base was also the one that elected Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. It certainly wouldn't be the first time the Republicans have blown a grand opportunity. With that being said, Trump needs the a vast majority of the base behind him to win and, as I mentioned in the prior post, the divide in this party is so deep in large part because of his antics on Twitter.

That wasn't the main point of my post though. My contention, see paragraphs 1-3, was about Trump being opposed by so many Republicans that, just like you, Hoot, and I, were fed up with the establishment and eager for a candidate to pull through that would actually take a stand on something. You never had any problems with Ted Cruz until he ran against Trump. I don't question his patriotism one bit, regardless of what decision he makes about the VP. With that being said, it wouldn't be a good fit. Trump will not work well with somebody who would challenge him, and Cruz would challenge him.

I heard the Dems make the argument and disagree with the apathetic Democrat low voter turnout rationale.

Things changed from the time I wrote those statements until today. One notable change was the fact that we had a primary process and the people spoke. I recognized the direction history was taking, rather early on I might add, and adapted to that reality and made some lemon aid. Can you do the same, or are you determined to live in the past?

And I disagree with you completely about Ted Cruz and his political opportunities and possibly even his responsibilities. This country didn't become great because people always get what they want. It became great because so many of those people sacrificed self for the common good.

Did you look up my posts, or did somebody send them to you?

[The Urban Sombrero]

NPR's 270 Project is an interesting, interactive tool to play around with voter turnout and "who wins by how much" along five demographics: white males, white famales, African-Americans, Hispanics, and "Other.". It's pretty interesting for political junkie types.

[WideRight05]

I heard the Dems make the argument and disagree with the apathetic Democrat low voter turnout rationale.

Things changed from the time I wrote those statements until today. One notable change was the fact that we had a primary process and the people spoke. I recognized the direction history was taking, rather early on I might add, and adapted to that reality and made some lemon aid. Can you do the same, or are you determined to live in the past?

And I disagree with you completely about Ted Cruz and his political opportunities and possibly even his responsibilities. This country didn't become great because people always get what they want. It became great because so many of those people sacrificed self for the common good.

Did you look up my posts, or did somebody send them to you?

We differ on the low voter turnout, but unless you want absolutely want to go deeper on it I am going to pass because it wasn't part of my main contention.

I looked up those posts. If you're implying that Hoot sent them to me, he did not. If he did, I would not have quoted them. I can tell you don't think this, but I am fully capable of thinking for myself. If you had seen several of my past posts with TRV, I would often quote him when I found him in contradiction with himself.

So you're saying that because people turn on Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio because Donald Trump says they are the bad guys, we should go with Trump....got it.

Who the people decide as the candidate means nothing to me. Using that logic, if we have a candidate like George Pataki that supports abortion, LGBT rights on demand, we should vote for him over ones that are openly against that just because the people support him? Absolutely not. I don't trust Donald Trump. I said from the beginning he was more of a moderate, but my mistake was not taking him seriously early on. Now, we are paying the price for it.

Your only defense has been that Donald Trump won the vote of the people. If you're going to use that logic with me, I certainly don't want to see you on here complaining about anything Barack Obama has done these past four years. Because Barack Obama won the vote of the people, twice - both by fairly sizable margins.

What do you disagree about my contention on relating to Ted Cruz? Tell me what he has done that has been so unpatriotic. Since you are going against the candidates that are putting up a fight against abortion and homosexuality that you strongly stand against, I'm curious as to your reasoning. You say that you disagree about his responsibilities, what should he do? Donald Trump has chased off many potentially good candidates like Cruz from working with him. Why would anybody want to work with someone that has such a difficult time controlling their temper?

Ted Cruz isn't the only candidate not part of the establishment that is not a fan of Donald Trump. Again, I would like to see you address what I said in the first three paragraphs of my initial post.

I'm determined to do one thing, and that is what is right. If you are going to convince me that Donald Trump is the right candidate, you will have to provide some kind of defense other than the people voting him in. If that means you claiming I live in the past, I'm honored. I would love to live in the day when people left their car doors unlocked and the key in the ignition when they were downtown because the crime rate was practically invisible.

[WideRight05]

On a side note, this thread has more replies than any political thread in the history of BGR.

[TheRealThing]

We differ on the low voter turnout, but unless you want absolutely want to go deeper on it I am going to pass because it wasn't part of my main contention.

I looked up those posts. If you're implying that Hoot sent them to me, he did not. If he did, I would not have quoted them. I can tell you don't think this, but I am fully capable of thinking for myself. If you had seen several of my past posts with TRV, I would often quote him when I found him in contradiction with himself.

So you're saying that because people turn on Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio because Donald Trump says they are the bad guys, we should go with Trump....got it.

Who the people decide as the candidate means nothing to me. Using that logic, if we have a candidate like George Pataki that supports abortion, LGBT rights on demand, we should vote for him over ones that are openly against that just because the people support him? Absolutely not. I don't trust Donald Trump. I said from the beginning he was more of a moderate, but my mistake was not taking him seriously early on. Now, we are paying the price for it.

Your only defense has been that Donald Trump won the vote of the people. If you're going to use that logic with me, I certainly don't want to see you on here complaining about anything Barack Obama has done these past four years. Because Barack Obama won the vote of the people, twice - both by fairly sizable margins.

What do you disagree about my contention on relating to Ted Cruz? Tell me what he has done that has been so unpatriotic. Since you are going against the candidates that are putting up a fight against abortion and homosexuality that you strongly stand against, I'm curious as to your reasoning. You say that you disagree about his responsibilities, what should he do? Donald Trump has chased off many potentially good candidates like Cruz from working with him. Why would anybody want to work with someone that has such a difficult time controlling their temper?

Ted Cruz isn't the only candidate not part of the establishment that is not a fan of Donald Trump. Again, I would like to see you address what I said in the first three paragraphs of my initial post.

I'm determined to do one thing, and that is what is right. If you are going to convince me that Donald Trump is the right candidate, you will have to provide some kind of defense other than the people voting him in. If that means you claiming I live in the past, I'm honored. I would love to live in the day when people left their car doors unlocked and the key in the ignition when they were downtown because the crime rate was practically invisible.

Please do differ with me on whatever you would like. But understand, whether I'm on here complaining about Barack or not, is up to me.

Well I did live in those days in fact. And they were even more laid back than you could likely imagine. People actually left more than their cars unlocked, though at one point I drove a 63 Chevy convertible that had a coveted 8 track player and I often left the top down parked on Winchester Ave all night, with 8 track tapes laying around on the front seat no less. Doors to people's houses were not only unlocked, they stood open to allow inflow of the cool night air. Only a hook latch on a screen door provided security, windows were raised at night for the same reason, and nothing ever happened. We laid rubber on the streets. Drive-In movies and the BlueGrass were considered high entertainment value recreational options, and I can truthfully say I believe those who missed living in that day missed the golden age of this land.

That being said, I don't know what 3 paragraphs you're talking about because I don't know what you consider to be your initial post. At any rate, my contention about the congressional turnover of 2010 and 2014 would be that voters are in the process of waking up to current events and the affairs of state. It has the look of a wave election to me, and I am not convinced the wave is finished. I believe Trump's victory was further evidence of same, and I believe the other and more classy of the GOP 16 were rejected for the same reason. So though I do consider acceptance of a lawfully prosecuted primary season to be enough of a door slam to settle the argument of who should be the nominee, there is quite a bit more to it than that. The more we change, the greater the distance we put between where we are and where we were in the days described above.

I made my opinion about Ted Cruz very clear, if you took offense on his behalf I don't know how else to explain what is by any standard, the impossibly fortuitous opportunity that I believe lies before him.

You seem to be looking to provoke or otherwise pick some kind of blog fight. I will not engage you on those terms. When I post I have what I believe to be good reasons for so doing. If you make a point and I choose to address it that's one thing. But I'm not bound by some rule or code to answer you on every thought you may choose to direct my way. Lastly, I said statesmen have a servant's heart and that being the case, when they have the opportunity to serve they step up. When Washington and his buddies were trying to separate this country from England they didn't know which awaited, glorious freedom or the hangman's noose. I suggested that Cruz could fill a rare niche in history because I believe his country needs him. In saying that, in no way did I suggest Cruz was unpatriotic.

[WideRight05]

Please do differ with me on whatever you would like. But understand, whether I'm on here complaining about Barack or not, is up to me.

Well I did live in those days in fact. And they were even more laid back than you could likely imagine. People actually left more than their cars unlocked, though at one point I drove a 63 Chevy convertible that had a coveted 8 track player and I often left the top down parked on Winchester Ave all night, with 8 track tapes laying around on the front seat no less. Doors to people's houses were not only unlocked, they stood open to allow inflow of the cool night air. Only a hook latch on a screen door provided security, windows were raised at night for the same reason, and nothing ever happened. We laid rubber on the streets. Drive-In movies and the BlueGrass were considered high entertainment value recreational options, and I can truthfully say I believe those who missed living in that day missed the golden age of this land.

That being said, I don't know what 3 paragraphs you're talking about because I don't know what you consider to be your initial post. At any rate, my contention about the congressional turnover of 2010 and 2014 would be that voters are in the process of waking up to current events and the affairs of state. It has the look of a wave election to me, and I am not convinced the wave is finished. I believe Trump's victory was further evidence of same, and I believe the other and more classy of the GOP 16 were rejected for the same reason. So though I do consider acceptance of a lawfully prosecuted primary season to be enough of a door slam to settle the argument of who should be the nominee, there is quite a bit more to it than that. The more we change, the greater the distance we put between where we are and where we were in the days described above.

I made my opinion about Ted Cruz very clear, if you took offense on his behalf I don't know how else to explain what is by any standard, the impossibly fortuitous opportunity that I believe lies before him.

You seem to be looking to provoke or otherwise pick some kind of blog fight. I will not engage you on those terms. When I post I have what I believe to be good reasons for so doing. If you make a point and I choose to address it that's one thing. But I'm not bound by some rule or code to answer you on every thought you may choose to direct my way. Lastly, I said statesmen have a servant's heart and that being the case, when they have the opportunity to serve they step up. When Washington and his buddies were trying to separate this country from England they didn't know which awaited, glorious freedom or the hangman's noose. I suggested that Cruz could fill a rare niche in history because I believe his country needs him. In saying that, in no way did I suggest Cruz was unpatriotic.

You've been the one taking offense, according to what you have posted TRT. You felt the need to suggest that the quote I made came from Hoot when in fact it did not. I don't kiss Hoot's rear the way that some of the Trump supporters on here have with yours. You may think it makes you feel better, having a few people behind you, most of whom also struggle to defend Trump, but I find it funny that you imply me working with Hoot when you've been high-fiving every one of their accusations and insults.

You take every criticism of Donald Trump as a personal attack. It's not. I don't like what Donald Trump stands for (or rather, doesn't stand for) and I don't trust him. I have stated multiple times on this forum that I have no issue with those voting for Donald Trump because of the need to keep Hillary out, though. It seems to me that you're the one trying to provoke the fight. I merely disagreed with your post and then you took a cheap shot at me in post #485. You're the one getting offended. I like Ted Cruz, but any of the other candidates with the exception of Pataki I would have been fine with. Christie, Bush, or Kasich, I would have been hesitant but probably would have felt the same way I did about them that I did with McCain or Romney. Not good, but would have probably voted for Christie or Bush reluctantly and would have thought deeply before voting for Kasich.

Yes, you being on here complaining about Obama is up to you. But don't you think it's hypocritical to do express concern about Obama and then try to tell others who feel concern and complain about Trump that they shouldn't be doing that? You're not bound by rule or code to address anything, no. But I have tried, and tried, and tried to get an understanding of you and the only thing I can get is that Trump won the nomination and that Chris Christie and other Republicans supported him so I should support him too. That's the kind of thinking liberals use. If you merely disagree, I'll be happy to discuss the issue with you. But if you're going to hurl insults, I'm not sitting back and taking it.

I honestly don't want the discussion going in this direction, the same way it has gone with you and Hoot. But I'm also not going to sit back and take insults being hurled at me.

[WideRight05]

In the beginning did you expect to see Trump being opposed by those who were anti-establishment? As different as you, Hoot, and I have been this election cycle, one thing the three of us having in common on a deep end - is that we all oppose the establishment and what they have done. We all agree that we have been represented by leaders who mostly have backed down or caved on several important issues.

At first I thought that as Trump moved along, even though he was running against some of the other guys I thought he would unite with Cruz, Rubio, Paul, and the ones that were fighting against the Jeb Bush's and Lindsey Graham's of the world. Instead, he has not just destroyed a relationship with the establishment, he has destroyed a relationship with many others. Had, say, Marco Rubio won, I think the election would have been intense but I don't think Cruz or Paul would have had much trouble rallying around him. I almost expected to see this kind of scenario with Bush or Graham not supporting the candidate if a non-establishment candidate won, and if this were just a few members of the establishment rebelling in fear of losing their power I would be understanding.

Trump, with the way he handled himself in the primary especially through his Twitter posts, put himself in a deep hole when it comes to his relationships with some of the others in the GOP. Trump has no one to blame but himself when it comes to how this party has become so divided.

If you're down for having a civil discussion again, TRT, these are the paragraphs I was referring to.

[TheRealThing]

If you're down for having a civil discussion again, TRT, these are the paragraphs I was referring to.

Nah, I've written enough on this subject that I am fairly assured it's all been addressed before. I'm not going to argue it all again with you.

[RunItUpTheGut]

On a side note, this thread has more replies than any political thread in the history of BGR.

There are very few replies. Mostly random babbling from the creator nicker:

[WideRight05]

Nah, I've written enough on this subject that I am fairly assured it's all been addressed before. I'm not going to argue it all again with you.

I don't feel those were ever appropriately answered, but you do. So we'll just agree to disagree and move on.

[TheRealThing]

I don't feel those were ever appropriately answered, but you do. So we'll just agree to disagree and move on.

Now that one I am down for.

[Pick6]

How is that any different than me being confident that Hillary Clinton is going to carry the state of Virginia by a comfortable margin and planning to vote for the most conservative candidate on the ballot? Why is is okay for you to sit out an election but such a big issue for you that I plan to vote for a conservative third party candidate?

Well Hoot Gibson, now that #NeverTrump is #VeryDead and Trump has selected Christian Conservative Mike Pence, where do stand? Are you still a Trump Hater and implicit Hillary supporter?

[Hoot Gibson]

Well Hoot Gibson, now that #NeverTrump is #VeryDead and Trump has selected Christian Conservative Mike Pence, where do stand? Are you still a Trump Hater and implicit Hillary supporter?

Both the #NeverTrump and the #NeverHillary movements are alive and well. Trump makes McCain look like a dream candidate in comparison. The real question is whether Trump will be on the ballot in November. Don't be surprised if the GOP replaces him with another RINO. If that happens, then I will be #NeverRINO.

[WideRight05]

So we may see Bush vs. Clinton after all.