[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.