[Hoot Gibson]

Political parties are private organizations. There is no law dictating how they select their nominees, nor should there be. I do not like the way the the GOP tries to rig the system in favor of moderates, but I do not dislike it enough to put forth the time and effort it would take for me to wield more power within the party than I have with my individual vote.

People who volunteer to stuff envelopes, make phone calls, knock on doors, work polls, and become regular donors to Republican candidates should have more influence on how the party is run. People who agree to run as Republican candidates at all levels of government deserve a bigger voice in the decisions that the GOP makes than I do.

Whoever does not like the way things are done within the Republican Party have two choices. They can withhold their support from Republican candidates or they can become party activists and put their money and sweat where their mouths are.

None of us are entitled to have any greater say in the nomination of the Republican candidate for president than what the Republican Party grants to us. The same goes for every other political party in this country. If you want to shape the way things are done in your party of choice in the future, then get busy or open your wallet. For me, I will vote in primaries when I am allowed to do so, and vote in general elections after each party decides on their nominees, in accordance with the rules that they set.

[Granny Bear]

I cannot believe you just said that.

So the wealthy and more affluential person's vote should count more than mine?

I think I will take a few days away from the political threads because the last thing I want to do is lose my temper and say things that I will most certainly regret in the future.

Let me tell you something Hoot Gibson before I leave. I have worked and/or gone to school every day of my life since I was 11. My husband worked two or three jobs so we wouldn't need to apply for any kind of government aid, i.e. food stamps, medical card. He did that because he had too much pride to admit that we couldn't make it. Well, he was right because we DID make it. He is the son of a totally disabled veteran, but CHOSE to fight in Viet Nam because of that pride. He paid, and is still paying, a great price.

My vote counts and SHOULD count.

Lastly if my husband ever did run for President, I would have more sense than to announce at a public speech that he is an immigrant!!!

Later guys.

[Hoot Gibson]

I cannot believe you just said that.

So the wealthy and more affluential person's vote should count more than mine?

People who do more for their party deserve more consideration than people who do less. A political party is no different than any other private club or other organization. If you invest time and money in the party, then you are more likely to rise and win elections within the organization. Do you believe that there is something inherently wrong with rewarding investment and hard work?

I think I will take a few days away from the political threads because the last thing I want to do is lose my temper and say things that I will most certainly regret in the future.

Nothing I said should be controversial or have any effect on your temper. We have a right to vote in general elections, regardless of how much or how little we have done for private political parties. We have no right to vote in party primary elections unless the party decides to allow us to do so.

Let me tell you something Hoot Gibson before I leave. I have worked and/or gone to school every day of my life since I was 11. My husband worked two or three jobs so we wouldn't need to apply for any kind of government aid, i.e. food stamps, medical card. He did that because he had too much pride to admit that we couldn't make it. Well, he was right because we DID make it. He is the son of a totally disabled veteran, but CHOSE to fight in Viet Nam because of that pride. He paid, and is still paying, a great price.

My vote counts and SHOULD count.

Your vote in general election counts as much as mine and our votes count as much as Bill Gates' vote. Party nominations are different. We can start our own political party and make our own rules, but if we want to have a voice in the rules of a party with millions of members, then we cannot expect that everything will be to our liking.

Ask yourself what gives you or anybody else the right to help select a private political party's nominee, any more than you have a right to help select the president of a local private country club. The principle is exactly the same. Private organizations make their own rules - that is what separates them from public organizations.
[/QUOTE]

Lastly if my husband ever did run for President, I would have more sense than to announce at a public speech that he is an immigrant!!!

Later guys.

Honestly, I don't know where the idea that people are entitled to participate in the selection of any political party's nominee. There is no such entitlement, there never has been, and there should never be such an entitlement. We are allowed to participate because some parties allow us to do so. The alternative is to have state-sponsored political parties and have the government make all the rules. That process usually ends in countries having a single political party, in which the candidate they select wins more than 90 percent of the vote.

[TheRealThing]

People who do more for their party deserve more consideration than people who do less. A political party is no different than any other private club or other organization. If you invest time and money in the party, then you are more likely to rise and win elections within the organization. Do you believe that there is something inherently wrong with rewarding investment and hard work?

Nothing I said should be controversial or have any effect on your temper. We have a right to vote in general elections, regardless of how much or how little we have done for private political parties. We have no right to vote in party primary elections unless the party decides to allow us to do so.

Your vote in general election counts as much as mine and our votes count as much as Bill Gates' vote. Party nominations are different. We can start our own political party and make our own rules, but if we want to have a voice in the rules of a party with millions of members, then we cannot expect that everything will be to our liking.

Ask yourself what gives you or anybody else the right to help select a private political party's nominee, any more than you have a right to help select the president of a local private country club. The principle is exactly the same. Private organizations make their own rules - that is what separates them from public organizations.

Honestly, I don't know where the idea that people are entitled to participate in the selection of any political party's nominee. There is no such entitlement, there never has been, and there should never be such an entitlement. We are allowed to participate because some parties allow us to do so. The alternative is to have state-sponsored political parties and have the government make all the rules. That process usually ends in countries having a single political party, in which the candidate they select wins more than 90 percent of the vote.

We live in what some people would call the information age. Back in the early days the average American had no real access to the workings in Washington Dc, nor did he have much to say about presidential nominees. And frankly, owing to the fact that in those days men of honor served with honor, that worked fine.

Now, what with all the liberal terraforming and globalist agenda concerns, folks are not so comfortable with the status quo. And thus they are suddenly active in the proceedings of their government. They want a voice not only in the elections, but in the candidate selection process. In short, as I have been saying, the voter has awakened.

You just said voters are not entitled to participate in the selection of their nominee and that is not right. Primary states and Caucus states almost always consider the vote count of the voting public for bound delegates, and often binding unbound delegates to vote for the leading vote getter. I mean, what pray tell is the whole campaign season all about if not wooing voters?

Then you said the alternative is to completely forego nominee selection by the voter, go to a one party state sponsored system, (which is the trophy the Dems thought was in nearly in their grasp in 2012) and cede control to the state to dictate terms. Which, given the election news to date, that will not fly either.

If the people trusted the two parties to be fair, maybe the status quo could continue and the establishment could hold sway. But that process, which may have originally been engineered to keep the Bernie Sanders style goof out of office, now looks to be a bit shady. And the unfortunate lapse in character and judgment displayed by many of those in power, has resulted in the people's rejection of the establishment candidates. They are just not going to accept more of the same. I believe the willingness of people to accept the liberal doctrine has peaked, and the rejection of same is afoot. I don't know what the eventual answer may turn out to be, but disenfranchising voters, who thanks to the 24/7 news loop and civics channels have suddenly become aware, is certainly not an option. They will not be denied, so the political parties had better get it figured out in a hurry. And they'd better stop feeding bull and blather to the voter, they are obviously having none of it.

We watched John McCain get beat. Then we watched Mitt Romney get beat. We saw the congress neutered, voter ID's shouted down and the government shut down. The status quo is rudderless and without conviction. What we are seeing is the rise of the voter.


"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic." .... Benjamin Franklin

America is fighting to reunite with her soul.

[RunItUpTheGut]

People who do more for their party deserve more consideration than people who do less. A political party is no different than any other private club or other organization. If you invest time and money in the party, then you are more likely to rise and win elections within the organization. Do you believe that there is something inherently wrong with rewarding investment and hard work?

Nothing I said should be controversial or have any effect on your temper. We have a right to vote in general elections, regardless of how much or how little we have done for private political parties. We have no right to vote in party primary elections unless the party decides to allow us to do so.

Your vote in general election counts as much as mine and our votes count as much as Bill Gates' vote. Party nominations are different. We can start our own political party and make our own rules, but if we want to have a voice in the rules of a party with millions of members, then we cannot expect that everything will be to our liking.

Ask yourself what gives you or anybody else the right to help select a private political party's nominee, any more than you have a right to help select the president of a local private country club. The principle is exactly the same. Private organizations make their own rules - that is what separates them from public organizations.

Honestly, I don't know where the idea that people are entitled to participate in the selection of any political party's nominee. There is no such entitlement, there never has been, and there should never be such an entitlement. We are allowed to participate because some parties allow us to do so. The alternative is to have state-sponsored political parties and have the government make all the rules. That process usually ends in countries having a single political party, in which the candidate they select wins more than 90 percent of the vote.[/QUOTE]

With that attitude we will eventually get what we want...the end of political parties. This election more than ever has shown people they do not need to be tied to a political party and over the next decade you will finally start seeing the end to caring about who gets nominations and every candidate will run as 3rd party whether they win or not.

[Hoot Gibson]

We live in what some people would call the information age. Back in the early days the average American had no real access to the workings in Washington Dc, nor did he have much to say about presidential nominees. And frankly, owing to the fact that in those days men of honor served with honor, that worked fine.

Now, what with all the liberal terraforming and globalist agenda concerns, folks are not so comfortable with the status quo. And thus they are suddenly active in the proceedings of their government. They want a voice not only in the elections, but in the candidate selection process. In short, as I have been saying, the voter has awakened.

You just said voters are not entitled to participate in the selection of their nominee and that is not right. Primary states and Caucus states almost always consider the vote count of the voting public for bound delegates, and often binding unbound delegates to vote for the leading vote getter. I mean, what pray tell is the whole campaign season all about if not wooing voters?

Then you said the alternative is to completely forego nominee selection by the voter, go to a one party state sponsored system, (which is the trophy the Dems thought was in nearly in their grasp in 2012) and cede control to the state to dictate terms. Which, given the election news to date, that will not fly either.

If the people trusted the two parties to be fair, maybe the status quo could continue and the establishment could hold sway. But that process, which may have originally been engineered to keep the Bernie Sanders style goof out of office, now looks to be a bit shady. And the unfortunate lapse in character and judgment displayed by many of those in power, has resulted in the people's rejection of the establishment candidates. They are just not going to accept more of the same. I believe the willingness of people to accept the liberal doctrine has peaked, and the rejection of same is afoot. I don't know what the eventual answer may turn out to be, but disenfranchising voters, who thanks to the 24/7 news loop and civics channels have suddenly become aware, is certainly not an option. They will not be denied, so the political parties had better get it figured out in a hurry. And they'd better stop feeding bull and blather to the voter, they are obviously having none of it.

We watched John McCain get beat. Then we watched Mitt Romney get beat. We saw the congress neutered, voter ID's shouted down and the government shut down. The status quo is rudderless and without conviction. What we are seeing is the rise of the voter.


"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic." .... Benjamin Franklin

America is fighting to reunite with her soul.

As I said, political parties are not government entities. They are organizations of people formed voluntarily by individual citizens exercising their constitutional right of freedom of assembly. If a consensus of individual members of a political party want to hold internal elections to determine the party's political candidates, they may do so, but parties are under no legal or moral obligation to nominate candidates democratically.

The right that we have as citizens is to associate with like minded individuals and form political parties. There is no right to vote on a party nominee - if a party allows you to participate in the selection of a nominee, it is a privilege that can be taken away at the party's discretion. There can be no disenfranchisement where there is no voting franchise.

The Framers of the Constitution were wise to create a republic instead of a direct democracy. Political parties are wise to put build some safeguards into the nomination process. Unfortunately, those safeguards were insufficient to prevent two "goofs" from being nominated in this election cycle, IMO. When Trump talks about drawing support from Bernie voters in the general election, that should serve as an alarm to all conservatives who have supported him during the primary season.

[Hoot Gibson]

With that attitude we will eventually get what we want...the end of political parties. This election more than ever has shown people they do not need to be tied to a political party and over the next decade you will finally start seeing the end to caring about who gets nominations and every candidate will run as 3rd party whether they win or not.

You may be right, Gut. There is nothing special about a two party system. Maybe we will end up with many viable political parties forming coalitions to control Congress and that might not be a bad thing to happen. But countries with more than two major parties still have their own problems. The same people will be running things, regardless of how many parties split the vote.

[RunItUpTheGut]

You may be right, Gut. There is nothing special about a two party system. Maybe we will end up with many viable political parties forming coalitions to control Congress and that might not be a bad thing to happen. But countries with more than two major parties still have their own problems. The same people will be running things, regardless of how many parties split the vote.

The two party system has become what it was never intended to be.
My only fear is we end up with a parliament type setting where votes get skewered.
I'd be fine with it though if the Democrats broke into 5 seperate parties. The greens, the gays, the unions, the establishment, and the rest. Likewise though you'd see the tea party, libertarians, etc break up the repubs.
I don't want to end up like a European country.
Sadly though there are to many different beliefs for a two party system to hold all its voters. No way should a socialist like Bernie sanders be on the same democratic ticket jfk was.

[Hoot Gibson]

The two party system has become what it was never intended to be.
My only fear is we end up with a parliament type setting where votes get skewered.
I'd be fine with it though if the Democrats broke into 5 seperate parties. The greens, the gays, the unions, the establishment, and the rest. Likewise though you'd see the tea party, libertarians, etc break up the repubs.
I don't want to end up like a European country.
Sadly though there are to many different beliefs for a two party system to hold all its voters. No way should a socialist like Bernie sanders be on the same democratic ticket jfk was.

I don't think that the problem is the parties, it is with the voters. If our educational system was not in total disarray, very few people would ever consider voting for a socialist. Every country in history that has spent beyond its means over a long period of time has seen its government and society fall.

Children should be taught the lessons of history. If our government continues on its present path, the same fate will befall us as the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and a long list of other empires and countries whose citizens grew fat and lazy and began taking their prosperity for granted.

Our schools place too much emphasis on anecdotal history of individuals and too little on events (and the cause and effect of those events). There are many great examples of deficit spending and hyperinflation leading to national catastrophes throughout history, and most college graduates are never exposed to them.

Nobody should graduate from high school without seeing photos of Germans pushing wheelbarrows full of worthless money and using it to wallpaper their homes. How many of today's students are taught why Venezuelans cannot afford toilet paper and recently had to shut down its beer breweries, despite possessing immense oil reserves?

Socialists are in control of the curricula taught in our public schools, and IMO, they are deliberately hiding the history of socialism from their students.

[diceman]

he is more racist than any republican ever

[TheRealThing]

As I said, political parties are not government entities. They are organizations of people formed voluntarily by individual citizens exercising their constitutional right of freedom of assembly. If a consensus of individual members of a political party want to hold internal elections to determine the party's political candidates, they may do so, but parties are under no legal or moral obligation to nominate candidates democratically.

The right that we have as citizens is to associate with like minded individuals and form political parties. There is no right to vote on a party nominee - if a party allows you to participate in the selection of a nominee, it is a privilege that can be taken away at the party's discretion. There can be no disenfranchisement where there is no voting franchise.

The Framers of the Constitution were wise to create a republic instead of a direct democracy. Political parties are wise to put build some safeguards into the nomination process. Unfortunately, those safeguards were insufficient to prevent two "goofs" from being nominated in this election cycle, IMO. When Trump talks about drawing support from Bernie voters in the general election, that should serve as an alarm to all conservatives who have supported him during the primary season.

^^Like I said, there was a time when those who served this land, served with honor because they were men of honor. We as a people and a nation have certainly not shown any legitimate evidence of having evolved to some higher standard as Mr Obama would tell you.

Instead our candidates (put forth for the people by political parties) are openly supportive of the gay agenda, abortion, and high taxes which ensure that they will have enough money to socially terraform this land in the social justice vision. These party driven candidates are prone to lie, distort and otherwise deny the truth about our heritage and our values. The Dems especially have moved so quickly and violently left, that they have managed to effectively leave many of their own party behind. And thus those who at one time were true believing Democrats find themselves unwilling to adhere to a party platform that denies their conscience and their faith.

Likewise, the uber liberal/progressive academia are the known subverters of our youth. And judges being appointed to the court are known for legislating, regulating and otherwise effecting social policy from the bench.

So, while you fixate on demanding that we conform to political party status quo according to your understanding, the people of this land have shown this election cycle, that they are no longer willing to accept that they are to be dominated by will of a 'few' who have clearly left the path to espouse ideologies which run contrary to the common good. If I understand you correctly, we have only two choices, accept the party driven candidate put forward by pinch nosed self appointed political aristocracy the likes of Rich Lowery and neocon Bill Kristol. Or, simply allow the state to tell us who the candidates are to be.

While I agree the US Constitution should not be monkeyed around with the way lying liberal/progressives long to see, the Presidential nominating process probably does need some tweeking, given the reality that the Us is no longer a vast rural society largely separated from the workings of Washington, DC. The information age has erased any such separation and the voter, who BTW have been heavily courted and encouraged to vote in the Presidential nomination process. And that by the very Parties you say have the right to deny them the same privilege. I guess they need to make up their darn minds.

These are the workings of the Republic of which the framers envisioned and established. Allowing ourselves to be entrenched and restricted to party offerings may be an acceptable practice as long as they know they are accountable to the people. Call this an attitude adjustment courtesy of the voting public. The party bosses have been put on notice as have those who hold office.

[WideRight05]

Not to change the subject at hand, but guys and gals, this is truly frightening. These are seven recent situations where corporations are attempting to bully their way to promoting homosexuality or where Christians are being punished for their faith - such as a doctor who is also a pastor that has been punished for preaching against homosexuality in one of his sermons.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-t...-our-faith

We absolutely need someone in office that will take a stand in these situations. I have seen Cruz take a consistent stand on most of these, Trump I have not, and he actually went against North Carolina on HB2.

[Hoot Gibson]

There is no nice way of saying this. Donald Trump is a kook. Not kooky like an eccentric, but likable old uncle but kooky like a despicable crazy megalomaniac who should be on some sort of watch list.

Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin
By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL 05/03/16 07:36 AM EDT

Donald Trump on Tuesday alleged that Ted Cruz’s father was with John F. Kennedy’s assassin shortly before he murdered the president, parroting a National Enquirer story claiming that Rafael Cruz was pictured with Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pro-Fidel Castro pamphlets in New Orleans in 1963.

A Cruz campaign spokesperson told the Miami Herald, which pointed out numerous flaws in the Enquirer story, that it was “another garbage story in a tabloid full of garbage.”

“His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being — you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous,” Trump said Tuesday during a phone interview with Fox News. “What is this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. They don't even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it.”

“I mean, what was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting?” Trump continued. “It’s horrible.”

[Hoot Gibson]

Not to change the subject at hand, but guys and gals, this is truly frightening. These are seven recent situations where corporations are attempting to bully their way to promoting homosexuality or where Christians are being punished for their faith - such as a doctor who is also a pastor that has been punished for preaching against homosexuality in one of his sermons.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-t...-our-faith

We absolutely need someone in office that will take a stand in these situations. I have seen Cruz take a consistent stand on most of these, Trump I have not, and he actually went against North Carolina on HB2.

Trump is like Obamacare. You have to elect him to see what he's really made of.

It is hard to believe that there is a hidden right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution that allows for abortion but no such right to privacy exists for young children to go to a restroom without being leered at (or worse) by a member of the opposite sex. Liberals argue that transgendered and transvestites already use the restrooms of their choice. That is true, but making it legal for them to do so makes it much tougher to prosecute those who do pose a real danger to women and children. People will murder whether or not it is illegal, but that is no reason to eliminate laws against murder and the same can be said of any law that is broken - and all laws are broken.

[Hoot Gibson]

^^Like I said, there was a time when those who served this land, served with honor because they were men of honor. We as a people and a nation have certainly not shown any legitimate evidence of having evolved to some higher standard as Mr Obama would tell you.

Instead our candidates (put forth for the people by political parties) are openly supportive of the gay agenda, abortion, and high taxes which ensure that they will have enough money to socially terraform this land in the social justice vision. These party driven candidates are prone to lie, distort and otherwise deny the truth about our heritage and our values. The Dems especially have moved so quickly and violently left, that they have managed to effectively leave many of their own party behind. And thus those who at one time were true believing Democrats find themselves unwilling to adhere to a party platform that denies their conscience and their faith.

Likewise, the uber liberal/progressive academia are the known subverters of our youth. And judges being appointed to the court are known for legislating, regulating and otherwise effecting social policy from the bench.

So, while you fixate on demanding that we conform to political party status quo according to your understanding, the people of this land have shown this election cycle, that they are no longer willing to accept that they are to be dominated by will of a 'few' who have clearly left the path to espouse ideologies which run contrary to the common good. If I understand you correctly, we have only two choices, accept the party driven candidate put forward by pinch nosed self appointed political aristocracy the likes of Rich Lowery and neocon Bill Kristol. Or, simply allow the state to tell us who the candidates are to be.

While I agree the US Constitution should not be monkeyed around with the way lying liberal/progressives long to see, the Presidential nominating process probably does need some tweeking, given the reality that the Us is no longer a vast rural society largely separated from the workings of Washington, DC. The information age has erased any such separation and the voter, who BTW have been heavily courted and encouraged to vote in the Presidential nomination process. And that by the very Parties you say have the right to deny them the same privilege. I guess they need to make up their darn minds.

These are the workings of the Republic of which the framers envisioned and established. Allowing ourselves to be entrenched and restricted to party offerings may be an acceptable practice as long as they know they are accountable to the people. Call this an attitude adjustment courtesy of the voting public. The party bosses have been put on notice as have those who hold office.

You are free to work within a political party's framework to reform it in any way you see fit. You are even free to start your own party and devise any system that you deem appropriate to select your nominee. The nomination process is just fine the way it is.

Limits on political donations should be eliminated entirely because they restrict free speech and give too big of an advantage to incumbents and celebrity candidates, who do not have to spend money to gain name recognition.

I am a conservative. I believe in allowing states to run elections and allowing members of private concerns such as political parties to make their own rules. I have believed for many years that the quality of candidates that we end up with through an increasing number of primary elections has dropped sharply over the decades. Most great American presidents were not produced by a widespread primary process.

[TheRealThing]

You are free to work within a political party's framework to reform it in any way you see fit. You are even free to start your own party and devise any system that you deem appropriate to select your nominee. The nomination process is just fine the way it is.

Limits on political donations should be eliminated entirely because they restrict free speech and give too big of an advantage to incumbents and celebrity candidates, who do not have to spend money to gain name recognition.

I am a conservative. I believe in allowing states to run elections and allowing members of private concerns such as political parties to make their own rules. I have believed for many years that the quality of candidates that we end up with through an increasing number of primary elections has dropped sharply over the decades. Most great American presidents were not produced by a widespread primary process.

Thanks ever so much. But really, if I were to go looking for advice it would be from a man like Lou Dobbs who is a true conservative and has worked these elections, conventions, caucuses and primaries since 1976.

The truth is however, I am very well aware of my options and my sted here in this land, and I conduct myself in a way appropriately consistent with those guidelines and freedoms. Cruz is out BTW.

[Hoot Gibson]

Thanks ever so much. But really, if I were to go looking for advice it would be from a man like Lou Dobbs who is a true conservative and has worked these elections, conventions, caucuses and primaries since 1976.

The truth is however, I am very well aware of my options and my sted here in this land, and I conduct myself in a way appropriately consistent with those guidelines and freedoms. Cruz is out BTW.

It doesn't matter who is in or who is out, I will not be voting for a kook.

[TheRealThing]

It doesn't matter who is in or who is out, I will not be voting for a kook.

It mattered to you up until about 8:30 this evening, A vote for anybody else than Trump at this point, is a vote for Hillary. The hands down, all time worst Presidential candidate of my lifetime.

[RunItUpTheGut]

They'll change there tune come november trt.

[TheRealThing]

They'll change there tune come november trt.

I keep saying it. The choice is Hillary or Trump. Not a hard choice

[Hoot Gibson]

It mattered to you up until about 8:30 this evening, A vote for anybody else than Trump at this point, is a vote for Hillary. The hands down, all time worst Presidential candidate of my lifetime.

You are supporting a candidate who just accused his opponent's father of hanging out with Lee Harney Oswald just before the assassination of John F. Kennedy and are gloating about the prospect of him becoming president. Nobody is a hands down worse candidate than Trump. Whether Hillary is the 1A or 1B worse candidate of all time, both are pathetic. The.choice is between a crooked liberal and a crazy one. I will choose neither.

[TheRealThing]

You are supporting a candidate who just accused his opponent's father of hanging out with Lee Harney Oswald just before the assassination of John F. Kennedy and are gloating about the prospect of him becoming president. Nobody is a hands down worse candidate than Trump. Whether Hillary is the 1A or 1B worse candidate of all time, both are pathetic. The.choice is between a crooked liberal and a crazy one. I will choose neither.

I liked JFK, disliked Johnson, disliked Ford, disliked Carter, loved Reagan, was okay with George H, disliked (a lot) Clinton, was okay (about half the time with George W but still defended him as the result of the global economic turn down and 9/11), and I dislike and have been miserable with Obama. Presidents have generally been something to endure if you ask me.

Unlike you, I cannot say that I KNOW exactly what Trump would do as President. I do however know what he has said he would do and that in this case, is about all we have to go on because he is not a politician and has no record on which to judge him. I do know however exactly what Hillary will do, because she does have a record and wears a brazen bent to advance an agenda of socialistic programs and further moral decay on her sleeve.

It is not that I have supported Trump, though I like what he says and disagree with the naysayers this side of history. Rather, I realize my choices this time around will not include Cruz, only Clinton and Trump. Therefore I can get my nose in a premature snit, get mad at everyone who could see the handwriting on the wall, take my ball, and go home, or I can vote for the candidate which more closely aligns himself with the ideals I believe to be important.

I would have expected all those who have been so vocal against Trump to have actively opposed the repeal of DADT, or ObamaCare, or the reelection of Mr Obama, I heard cerebral consternation or a sort but no real opposition. And I would certainly think they would do their best to, in a rational and dignified manner, oppose Hillary. But no, most of what I have heard are speculative anti Trump criticisms. Cruz I thought, shot himself in the foot the day he began to retrace Rubio's footsteps and make HIS campaign all about Donald. If his mouth was open he was trashing Trump. The truth is I liked his campaign platform and thought he should have taken his own advice and stayed more positive. In any case I didn't vote for Trump, but nearly 10 million others did, and I can see why.

Unless I change my mind, which at this point options considered, would take a lot, he will get my vote in the fall. I do not apologize for my method for keeping the fracas which has been this election season sorted out. I am smart enough to know that vast majority of the character assassinations on the Republican side has come from the left, as they gleefully stood by to hand more pies to the foodfight combatants. The list of those who have endorsed Trump whether you choose to admit it or not, reads like a who's who of conservative patriots from all walks of life. So if you insist on continuing to make what we have seen transpire on the national scene personal, go for it.

[Hoot Gibson]

If you want to continue taking my insults of Trump as if they were directed at you, then that's your choice. If you keep insulting me in response, then you can expect incoming.

Trump's allegation that Rafael Cruz was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald within days of his assassination of JFK was plain nuts. Nobody knows what Trump will do if he is elected president because he is not a rational human being. I see that as a big negative, but that's just me.

I intend to keep my perfect record of not voting to place our nuclear arsenal under the control of a crazy man.

[TheRealThing]

If you want to continue taking my insults of Trump as if they were directed at you, then that's your choice. If you keep insulting me in response, then you can expect incoming.

Trump's allegation that Rafael Cruz was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald within days of his assassination of JFK was plain nuts. Nobody knows what Trump will do if he is elected president because he is not a rational human being. I see that as a big negative, but that's just me.

I intend to keep my perfect record of not voting to place our nuclear arsenal under the control of a crazy man.

I would bet that only you and MAYBE one other person on here think I confuse insults directed at me with those directed at Trump.

You're mad because I have not climbed up on the anti Trump band wagon. That doesn't mean my eyes are closed or that I'm a cultist. There is evidence compiled by an independent researcher, who BTW even after being confronted by various and sundry challenges, continues to stand by his initial assessment that a man in a photo, of which he has done a forensic examination, handing out leaflets along side Lee Harvey Oswald looks like Rafael Cruz. He didn't say it was actually him, but as I understand it he cannot exclude him.

Would I have brought that up? Nope. Is it crass, maybe. Does that rise to the level of telling grieving family members their slain loved ones were victims of an internet movie desecrating Mohammed? Not in my opinion. Trump had Indiana won and it was time to be a gracious victor. This shows what comes of stretching credulity to the nth degree when making charges against one's political opponents. In my book, though somewhat classier (if that's even possible) Cruz's offenses are to some degree comparable.

[WideRight05]

I made a vow to stay out of this, but I'm going to step up.

I look up to both of you. Deeply. I hate to see you all tearing into teach other like this. I've watched myself turn from somebody who feared jumping into political debates, who couldn't articulate very well to somebody who has been very well-rounded. In large part because of what you guys have done on this board.

Let's start from here. A truce. Hoot, I guess it's your response now so go ahead and make your argument against Trump. Let's all hit a reset button and start this over.

[Hoot Gibson]

I would bet that only you and MAYBE one other person on here think I confuse insults directed at me with those directed at Trump.

You're mad because I have not climbed up on the anti Trump band wagon. That doesn't mean my eyes are closed or that I'm a cultist. There is evidence compiled by an independent researcher, who BTW even after being confronted by various and sundry challenges, continues to stand by his initial assessment that a man in a photo, of which he has done a forensic examination, handing out leaflets along side Lee Harvey Oswald looks like Rafael Cruz. He didn't say it was actually him, but as I understand it he cannot exclude him.

Would I have brought that up? Nope. Is it crass, maybe. Does that rise to the level of telling grieving family members their slain loved ones were victims of an internet movie desecrating Mohammed? Not in my opinion. Trump had http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/ima...gifIndiana won and it was time to be a gracious victor. This shows what comes of stretching credulity to the nth degree when making charges against one's political opponents. In my book, though somewhat classier (if that's even possible) Cruz's offenses are to some degree comparable.

Taken your own little private poll, have you now? :lmao:

I could not care less how many people on BGR believe that you have been victimized by one of the few anti-Trump posters left here. Insulting me because you don't like what I have had to say about Trump is wrong no matter how you justify it. It really makes no difference to me who you support in this race. There is no way to predict which one would do the least damage to this country.

[Hoot Gibson]

I made a vow to stay out of this, but I'm going to step up.

I look up to both of you. Deeply. I hate to see you all tearing into teach other like this. I've watched myself turn from somebody who feared jumping into political debates, who couldn't articulate very well to somebody who has been very well-rounded. In large part because of what you guys have done on this board.

Let's start from here. A truce. Hoot, I guess it's your response now so go ahead and make your argument against Trump. Let's all hit a reset button and start this over.

No need for a truce, Wide. If TRT wants to stop his petty insults, then we have no problem. As for making an argument against Trump, I am not trying to convince anybody to vote against him. I think nominating Trump has sealed the Republican Party's fate in November. Either Hillary will win the election, or some ringer like Booker will.

A candidate cannot insult as many people in his own party as often as Trump has and unite his opponents' supporters behind him. Enough conservatives will vote third party to make it impossible for Trump to win, IMO.

If voters really believe that Trump is the lesser of two evils, then they should vote for him this fall. I had a very difficult time casting a vote for McCain, so I cannot imagine any circumstance that I would vote for somebody with Trump's "attributes." It is amazing to me that my classmates and I learned how to pronounce Tanzania in an Ohio elementary school, and we may have a president in a few months who could not pronounce Tanzania while reading a teleprompter at the ripe old age of 69, in what was billed as a "major foreign policy speach."

[jetpilot]

No need for a truce, Wide. If TRT wants to stop his petty insults, then we have no problem. As for making an argument against Trump, I am not trying to convince anybody to vote against him. I think nominating Trump has sealed the Republican Party's fate in November. Either Hillary will win the election, or some ringer like Booker will.

A candidate cannot insult as many people in his own party as often as Trump has and unite his opponents' supporters behind him. Enough conservatives will vote third party to make it impossible for Trump to win, IMO.

If voters really believe that Trump is the lesser of two evils, then they should vote for him this fall. I had a very difficult time casting a vote for McCain, so I cannot imagine any circumstance that I would vote for somebody with Trump's "attributes." It is amazing to me that my classmates and I learned how to pronounce Tanzania in an Ohio elementary school, and we may have a president in a few months who could not pronounce Tanzania while reading a teleprompter at the ripe old age of 69, in what was billed as a "major foreign policy speach."

Rush Limbaugh disagrees:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/0..._landslide

[TheRealThing]

Taken your own little private poll, have you now? :lmao:

I could not care less how many people on BGR believe that you have been victimized by one of the few anti-Trump posters left here. Insulting me because you don't like what I have had to say about Trump is wrong no matter how you justify it. It really makes no difference to me who you support in this race. There is no way to predict which one would do the least damage to this country.

All I did was point out your personal attacks on anybody you can't influence negatively against Trump on this site. If you think you're victimizing them or me, that moves you into a club with a membership of one. Just a suggestion here, it is possible even if remotely so, that you're overestimating the impact of your 'incoming,' where I am concerned. Say what you want.

[Hoot Gibson]

Rush Limbaugh disagrees:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/0..._landslide

When has Rush Limbaugh ever predicted that a Republican candidate would lose this early in the general campaign? I don't recall it ever happening. Rush is a Republican booster and he has carefully taken positions on the fence to avoid offending his audience. Not that there is anything wrong with that - he is operating the most successful business of its kind in history.

IMO, Rush put on a better and more entertaining show as he tried to build his audience than he has since he shifted into maintenance mode.