[Hoot Gibson]

Rand Paul endorsed Trump.

"You know, I've always said I will endorse the nominee," said Paul. "I think it's almost a patriotic duty of anyone in Kentucky to oppose the Clintons, because I think they're rotten to the core, I think they're dishonest people, and ultimately I think we have to be concerned with what's best for Kentucky." ----Rand Paul


Count me in! :Thumbs:

Nothing screams love of country like supporting a candidate who is willing to ignore the Constitution and use the power of the federal government to settle personal vendettas.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Read this slowly to yourself. This isn't about Ted Cruz and liking him or not, this is about the Republicans sending another moderate with the potential to cave to the left-wing agenda.

You haven't said squat in regard to your opinion or Trump'a policies. You may know a thing or two, but you sure haven't shown it. This time last year you were saying that anything other than Cruz is bad, now anything other than Trump is bad. You're scared to go directly at me or Hoot because you know you've already been badly destroyed and wouldn't be able to provide anything to back your claims up.

TRT, and I hate to drag him into this, but agree or not, he throws out information to back up any claim he makes. And I have disagreed with his assessments. But at least he provides a credible argument. I highly doubt he appreciates a cheerleader trying to slap him on the butt every time he makes a post. TRT and Hoot, despite their differences right now, both provide relevant information and can construct a lucid argument as to their reasoning. You have not.

You must clarify before I continue past the first sentence.
How slowly? I'm being honest when I say I didn't read anything past that sentence. I need some guidance on if your post should take me a week, two, a month etc....

[RunItUpTheGut]

I would have taken any candidate over Trump if forced to choose one - and that includes Pataki and even Lindsey Graham, whom I despise. Pataki was actually a pretty decent governor, IMO. Trump is the most dishonest and dangerous candidate that I have ever watched. Hillary may be as evil, but she is not transparently evil the way that Trump is. Trump does not even try to hide how he would use the power of the federal government to punish his enemies. I doubt that there is a man alive with a longer list of perceived and real enemies.

:biglmao:

State it now. Will you vote for Hillary Clinton in November?
Don't give me the "I not voting" spill.

Please do tell. If forced to vote, would you vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump?

[Hoot Gibson]

Here is just another reason for me to despise Trump. Who is likely to pay for Trump's tariffs, trade wars, and other miscellaneous mischief as he targets an ever expanding universe of enemies? Look to your right, look to your left, and then look in a mirror. When Trump threatens people and companies, I find him very credible because he has a long history of bullying people.

There is some irony in a billionaire bully complaining about the taxes other people dodge while refusing to release his own tax returns. Every major presidential candidate since 1976 has released his tax returns. Not Trump.

Donald Trump isn't giving up on his months-long tirade against Amazon, Jeff Bezos and the Washington Post.

Trump went on Fox News Thursday night to tell Sean Hannity the same theory he's been spouting since he went on an epic Twitter tirade against Bezos in December.

Trump's contention can basically be boiled down to this: Bezos bought the Washington Post in 2013 in order to persuade Washington politicians to keep Amazon's taxes low and help the company avoid antitrust scrutiny. And Trump says that since he would be tougher on Amazon than Hillary Clinton, Bezos is also using the Post to write nasty articles about Trump to keep him out of the White House.

Or, in Trump's own words....

"This is owned as a toy by Jeff Bezos who controls Amazon," Trump told Hannity. "Amazon is getting away with murder tax-wise. He's using the Washington Post for power so that the politicians in Washington don't tax Amazon like they should be taxed."

Trump said Bezos is "worried about me," because "he thinks I would go after him for antitrust because he's got a huge antitrust problem. Amazon is controlling so much of what they're doing ... What he's got is a monopoly and he wants to make sure I don't get in."

[Hoot Gibson]

:biglmao:

State it now. Will you vote for Hillary Clinton in November?
Don't give me the "I not voting" spill.

Please do tell. If forced to vote, would you vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump?

I haven't decided yet. I won't be voting for either Hillary or Trump. They are both thieving liars. A Trump win would probably be worse for Republicans, conservatives, and capitalism, because the people who nominated these lowlifes will blame all three for Trump if he screws things up worse than they already are.

In my opinion, it is always better to fight evil than to support evil and then defend your decision.

[TheRealThing]

Nothing screams love of country like supporting a candidate who is willing to ignore the Constitution and use the power of the federal government to settle personal vendettas.

As I said, you don't know what he'll do and there are 535 Senators and Congressmen who'll be watching, along with the media which have been playing tag with reality, since he won New Hampshire.

Everybody Trump has mentioned so far to fill cabinet posts are far superior to the marionettes associated with the present administration. No wet behind the ears Harvard grads in this bunch. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/277...t-might-be

And as for Trump's potential SC picks?
EXCERPT---
"GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump has a choice for the next Supreme Court justice: He wants "someone as close to [Antonin] Scalia as I could find."

"It will be a conservative person, a person with great intellect," Trump told Fox News' "Fox & Friends" program. "And I would really use that as the model. As close to Scalia. I thought Scalia was terrific."
Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-S...z48a3xMSDN

That sounds like a man who loves his country as compared to Hillary as far as I am concerned.

[Hoot Gibson]

As I said, you don't know what he'll do and there are 535 Senators and Congressmen who'll be watching, along with the media which have been playing tag with reality, since he won New Hampshire.

Everybody Trump has mentioned so far to fill cabinet posts are far superior to the marionettes associated with the present administration. No wet behind the ears Harvard grads in this bunch. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/277...t-might-be

And as for Trump's potential SC picks?
EXCERPT---
"GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump has a choice for the next Supreme Court justice: He wants "someone as close to [Antonin] Scalia as I could find."

"It will be a conservative person, a person with great intellect," Trump told Fox News' "Fox & Friends" program. "And I would really use that as the model. As close to Scalia. I thought Scalia was terrific."
Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/trump-S...z48a3xMSDN

That sounds like a man who loves his country as compared to Hillary as far as I am concerned.

535 Congressmen have been watching Obama. How has that turned out? Nothing makes up for an immoral president who shows disdain for the U.S. Constitution. That lesson should have been learned over the past seven years.

[WideRight05]

That was my point. Republicans haven't used it or in fact haven't really done anything in a long time. That has allowed an opening for someone to stand up and say no more. Granted it was a Billionaire reality tv star, but i'll take it over Hillary. We have no idea what he will do, and while that is a scary thought, i'll still take the chance over another 8 years of what is known with Hillary. Republicans have gotten lazy, or just scared, but at some point someone from this party has to stand up and stop worrying about what label the media puts on them, otherwise today is our future. Today Obama is trying to order Schools to open bathrooms for everyone, being the bully he is, and the cowards in DC, he will end up with his way unless someone stands up. The only Republican i've seen say anything so far, is Matt Bevin. Although i haven't looked too hard to see what's being said, it's disgusting enough without seeing all the liberals praising him for it in the comments section nicker:

Me personally, i don't really care who votes for who. It's the Freedom of choice that's the greatest thing, plus to be honest the whole NeverTrump crowd doesn't really make a difference one way or the other. A lot of them will still vote for Trump when the time comes, just have to let them get through the 5 stages of grief and they will come around. Like i said before, i think Trump beats Hillary easily, and he will surround himself with the right people, and the future will be somewhat brighter for us all.

First off, DMW, and I sincerely mean this, thank you for the lucid response. :Thumbs:

It's been a few hours since you posted that so you may have seen it, but I'll give you a nice run down of the governors and/or attorney generals that have stood up to that crazy order issued by the administration. Let me tell you that I agree with everything you said about this being a law used by Obama to bully the school system into his agenda.

Matt Bevin (I didn't vote for Bevin in the primary - I voted Heiner - but I sure love Bevin and the job he has done! You had actually already mentioned him, but I'll add this to the list.)

WV Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (A bit of a surprise to me)

Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick (Neither a surprise, but great to see)

Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant (Also not a surprise, but glad to have)

Obviously I think NC Governor Pat McCrory will stand up to it, Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest already has.

Utah Governor Gary Herbert (He really backed down when a judge ruled against a homosexual "couple" recently - I was very disappointed in that but glad he's standing here)

Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson (Backed down on the religious freedom bill - glad to see him taking a stand here)

Indiana Governor Mike Pence (Also backed on the religious freedom bill - glad to have him here)

Idaho Governor Butch Otter (Recently backed down when he could have helped the Church - glad to have him here)

South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard (Recently backed down when he could have passed a law similar to NC)

The liberal praise you mentioned, yes, was absolutely disgusting and pathetic. But the good news at this point is that at least we have some like Bevin that have backbone and others that don't - that have taken a massive stand on this issue.

I think Trump will take a stand on this issue just because there is so much pressure on him coming from the Republican Party to do so. With that being said, I'm curious as to what level he stands. The straw that broke the camel's back in my decision not to vote for him was watching him on the Today show when he was talking about HB2 in North Carolina. You and I both strongly oppose any aspect of the LGBT agenda - Trump used the argument that NC was losing business because of the bill. Governor Pat McCrory took a big stand against corporations which generally surprised me because his history isn't very strong, for example when he vetoed a bill last year that would have protected judges from performing same-sex "wedding ceremonies."

One of the cornerstones of Trump's campaign has been standing up and sticking it to big business. Unfortunately, he did not stand up when it came to the LGBT agenda. Trump made a tweet in the beginning that he would be one of the best representatives Christians have seen in a long time. On issues like this, he has not taken a stand. We can only hope, and pray, at this point, that Trump has a change of a heart on a few issues.

I get your frustration, DMW. You've wanted this country to return to good values and moral decency, while taking fiscal responsibility and standing up to terrorists, not coddling them as we are now. I understand your frustration there because I share it, and also think that the problem the GOP establishment has lies in both what you said in terms of laziness and fear of being cast as bad people in our media. If this were 2008 or 2012 with the candidates they sent, I'm not sure where I would be leaning. This time though, we have multiple candidates that have a consistent record of fighting both the Democrats and the GOP establishment but have been heavily outnumbered in their battles. Trump was able to pin them with the establishment, and unfortunately we let our emotions regarding the frustration with the establishment cloud our judgment in determining a trustworthy candidate to send. If this were 2008 or 2012, I might have been for taking this kind of risk, but considering we had multiple candidates that would have done well in beating Hillary and the establishment we did not need to take that kind of risk.

[WideRight05]

Rand Paul endorsed Trump.

"You know, I've always said I will endorse the nominee," said Paul. "I think it's almost a patriotic duty of anyone in Kentucky to oppose the Clintons, because I think they're rotten to the core, I think they're dishonest people, and ultimately I think we have to be concerned with what's best for Kentucky." ----Rand Paul


Count me in! :Thumbs:

I'm very interested in reading your posts TRT. You always provide insight and depth as to your reasoning. Regarding endorsements, though, that will not sway me. If Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Mike Lee all came out and endorsed Trump, it will not have an impact on my vote.

[Hoot Gibson]

If Trump has really picked up John Miller's endorsement, that could become a big story.

[Hoot Gibson]

It turns out that John Miller, a former Trump publicist has already endorsed Trump - 25 years ago.

[YOUTUBE="John Miller endorses Donald Trump"]X-7C80x3ZJs[/YOUTUBE]

[WideRight05]

You must clarify before I continue past the first sentence.
How slowly? I'm being honest when I say I didn't read anything past that sentence. I need some guidance on if your post should take me a week, two, a month etc....

I would say you need guidance when it comes to reading a post on here and a lot of other things as well. :biglmao:

[Hoot Gibson]

Still no response to the John Miller recording from the resident Trump supporters. I am interested in knowing whether you trust your own ears or Donald Trump when he denies that Mr. Miller's voice is the same as his voice and emanated from the same mouth. His current spokesperson says that the voice on the tape does not even sound like Donald Trump.

What say you? Does the man in the recording sound sane to you? Is that man the man who you support for president? How did the National Enquirer get scooped on this story? Enquiring (pun intended) minds want to know.

:biglmao:

It turns out that John Miller, a former Trump publicist has already endorsed Trump - 25 years ago.

[YOUTUBE="John Miller endorses Donald Trump"]X-7C80x3ZJs[/YOUTUBE]

[TheRealThing]

First off, DMW, and I sincerely mean this, thank you for the lucid response. :Thumbs:

It's been a few hours since you posted that so you may have seen it, but I'll give you a nice run down of the governors and/or attorney generals that have stood up to that crazy order issued by the administration. Let me tell you that I agree with everything you said about this being a law used by Obama to bully the school system into his agenda.

Matt Bevin (I didn't vote for Bevin in the primary - I voted Heiner - but I sure love Bevin and the job he has done! You had actually already mentioned him, but I'll add this to the list.)

WV Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (A bit of a surprise to me)

Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick (Neither a surprise, but great to see)

outnumbered in their battles. Trump was able to pin them with the establishment, and unfortunately we let our emotions regarding the frustration with the establishment cloud our judgment in determining a trustworthy candidate to send. If this were 2008 or 2012, I might have been for taking this kind of risk, but considering we had multiple candidates that would have done well in beating Hillary and the establishment we did not need to take that kind of risk.

I'm very interested in reading your posts TRT. You always provide insight and depth as to your reasoning. Regarding endorsements, though, that will not sway me. If Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Mike Lee all came out and endorsed Trump, it will not have an impact on my vote.

I would never try to impose my will on your right of choice Wide. These are some very nice posts and I am proud of you.

Knowing what I do about Hillary, and knowing what I do about Trump my conscience as of today will be clear when I vote for Trump. Other people that speak in authoritative and categorical terms in saying what Trump will do are to put it graciously, off base. We know what he has said, and where others see moderation, the explanation tends to be on point from what I have heard. For example, Steve Moore was pretty clear in supporting Trump's financial plan and said that on the few areas in which he and Trump had at one time differed, Trump has since indicated he was open to make the changes of which Moore would like to see. But, Moore was quick to point out in having said as much, that even without those 'tweaks' Trump's plan was quite solid. And for perspective on the matter of compromise, consider the changes that have followed the original 2,700 pages of the ObamaCare Bill. The rabid chipmunks are still feverishly publishing more regulations to add to the bill as we speak.

We'd all like to just pull the flush lever and see the horrors of the past 7 plus years go away. Where the President must remember he is constrained to be the Chief Executive, State officials such as those you have mentioned above are not as bound by their office. It would be hard for any Presidential candidate to speak adamantly as to what he will do about existing law. We have to work our way through this nightmare lawfully. But, Texas Lt Governor Dan Patrick for example, is someone who can and should stand up to the federal government in this matter of forcing our school systems to fully and openly embrace homosexuality and/or sexual identity confusion, or whatever the nom du jour happens to be. Like I have been saying, this administration has managed to repackage, redefine, or otherwise rename everything this society once held to be vile and offensive on the moral front, including the millions massacred on the butcher's block instead of being delivered into the loving arms of their intended mothers.

What is done, is done. The candidates, indictments notwithstanding, look to be set. Winston Churchill once said the only thing worse than having allies, is not having allies. We as societies deal with the situations we face at any given point in time. Right now, this nation is in a fight to see if we can reclaim the soul of traditional America, or if we succumb to the scourge of globalization. To me, the secret to survival is in the people recognizing the only thing separating this country from it's perch of freedom and liberty for all, is continuing acceptance of the "will of the people." Anything, and I mean anything else, is to bow to the specter of tyranny. Darrell Issa said only today that he was endorsing Trump. When asked why he said, (paraphrased) "It's simple. The people made their choice. The demographic of that choice cut across all categories. And the vote totals were of historic levels." When the people choose the issue is moot.

[Hoot Gibson]

When the voting is done, Donald Trump will have the most votes cast against him during the GOP primaries of any nominee in history. His percentage of the total votes cast will be among the lowest ever won.

[Image: https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/i....jpg&w=371]

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
Looks like he will also have one of the highest :biglmao:

[Hoot Gibson]

^
Looks like he will also have one of the highest :biglmao:

If that is what it looks like to you, then you could use a refresher course in basic graph reading. Trump has received 40 percent of the votes in the GOP primaries and caucuses so far, and that total includes many Democrat votes.

[TheRealThing]

When the voting is done, Donald Trump will have the most votes cast against him during the GOP primaries of any nominee in history. His percentage of the total votes cast will be among the lowest ever won.

[Image: https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/i....jpg&w=371]

^^More anti-logical drivel. The people who voted for Trump, were not voting against the other 16 candidates, anymore than the people who voted for Cruz or Bush etc., were voting against Trump. Same principle holds true for the polling for the general election. Now that we Republicans have our candidate, and the fog of mistruth has dissipated somewhat, the choice has become suddenly a lot more clear.

Clinton who has a public record dating back to Billy boy's days as governor of Arkansas is an open book, literally. While Trump who has no public record is getting most of the scrutiny anyway.

[RunItUpTheGut]

When the voting is done, Donald Trump will have the most votes cast against him during the GOP primaries of any nominee in history. His percentage of the total votes cast will be among the lowest ever won.

[Image: https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/i....jpg&w=371]

If that is what it looks like to you, then you could use a refresher course in basic graph reading. Trump has received 40 percent of the votes in the GOP primaries and caucuses so far, and that total includes many Democrat votes.

Well, im certainly no mathematician, but it looks to me as Bush in 00 is the only one on your graph that has received more votes than Trump. The GOP has tried for years to persuade democrats to switch, and to me it looks like Trump is the first to make that succeed in happening.
Where is this refresher course you speak of? I will double check.

[Hoot Gibson]

^^More anti-logical drivel. The people who voted for Trump, were not voting against the other 16 candidates, anymore than the people who voted for Cruz or Bush etc., were voting against Trump. Same principle holds true for the polling for the general election. Now that we Republicans have our candidate, and the fog of mistruth has dissipated somewhat, the choice has become suddenly a lot more clear.

Clinton who has a public record dating back to Billy boy's days as governor of Arkansas is an open book, literally. While Trump who has no public record is getting most of the scrutiny anyway.

You should recognize anti-logical drivel, but sadly you do not. Trump will win the nomination with a record number of votes because a record number of votes will be cast - not because he is a popular nominee. As for "mistruth," that is something else that you are struggling with to recognize since becoming a Trump fan. Trump has a way of desensitizing people to lies.

[Hoot Gibson]

Well, im certainly no mathematician, but it looks to me as Bush in 00 is the only one on your graph that has received more votes than Trump. The GOP has tried for years to persuade democrats to switch, and to me it looks like Trump is the first to make that succeed in happening.
Where is this refresher course you speak of? I will double check.

I never disputed that Trump will receive more votes than any GOP nominee in history. What I pointed out, and what the graph illustrates, is that Trump will receive more votes because a record number of votes will be cast for all candidates and that Trump has received a paltry 40 percent of the total votes cast, many of which were cast by crossover Democrats who will be voting for Hillary in November.


Historically, very few GOP nominees have received a smaller share of the total votes before. The 60 percent of Republican voters who voted against Trump and Trump's nasty disposition are making it very difficult for the party to unite behind him. A smart candidate does not burn bridges in the spring that he will need to cross in November. Donald Trump is not a smart candidate.

[TheRealThing]

You should recognize anti-logical drivel, but sadly you do not. Trump will win the nomination with a record number of votes because a record number of votes will be cast - not because he is a popular nominee. As for "mistruth," that is something else that you are struggling with to recognize since becoming a Trump fan. Trump has a way of desensitizing people to lies.

I thought a man of your high standards eschewed personal attack in favor of demure but lofty analysis? At any rate, your misrepresentations of my state of mind notwithstanding, this is a republic according to Franklin and votes do matter. I have not agreed with the majority the last two cycles as far as President was concerned, but we may have turned the corner if the Congressional races are any indication. I'll wait for history to decide all the speculation about Trump if it's all the same to you. If he is the slime you think, we have no chance and who knows but that possibly the sun has set on American exceptionalism. If that is the case, no election will make a difference.

Still, I doubt that speculative character assassination will save us.

[Hoot Gibson]

I thought a man of your high standards eschewed personal attack in favor of demure but lofty analysis? At any rate, your misrepresentations of my state of mind notwithstanding, this is a republic according to Franklin and votes do matter. I have not agreed with the majority the last two cycles as far as President was concerned, but we may have turned the corner if the Congressional races are any indication. I'll wait for history to decide all the speculation about Trump if it's all the same to you. If he is the slime you think, we have no chance and who knows but that possibly the sun has set on American exceptionalism. If that is the case, no election will make a difference.

Still, I doubt that speculative character assassination will save us.

If you want more civil discourse, then try being more civil.

As for speculative character assassination, I think Trump has spent a lifetime committing character suicide. It is interesting that no Trump supporter aside from those being paid by the campaign have rushed to support Trump's statement that he and John Miller are not the same person. Are you all getting tired of defending Trump's obvious lies? nicker:

[TheRealThing]

If you want more civil discourse, then try being more civil.

As for speculative character assassination, I think Trump has spent a lifetime committing character suicide. It is interesting that no Trump supporter aside from those being paid by the campaign have rushed to support Trump's statement that he and John Miller are not the same person. Are you all getting tired of defending Trump's obvious lies? nicker:

At this point as far as I'm concerned, civility is a two way street. By all means be just as nasty as you feel directed. Let's see, we can put Benghazi and the email investigation in one scale, and Trump's alleged 25 year old impersonation of a publicist in the other. So chalk up another forgettable bad decision to narcissism, but does that tip the scale in Hillary's favor? It's a rare man indeed whose entire life is free from things he'd like to change. You like to use the "Judge not" ploy if you need to make a debate point on occasion. You've certainly appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner for one Donald J. Trump though.

Have you considered that all Trump supporters may not have been in the room when Trump was supposedly on the phone? Maybe they prefer to wait and see what happened or maybe it doesn't quite rise to the level of high crime and misdemeanor of the sort we have become accustomed from our leaders?

[Hoot Gibson]

At this point as far as I'm concerned, civility is a two way street. By all means be just as nasty as you feel directed. Let's see, we can put Benghazi and the email investigation in one scale, and Trump's alleged 25 year old impersonation of a publicist in the other. So chalk up another forgettable bad decision to narcissism, but does that tip the scale in Hillary's favor? It's a rare man indeed whose entire life is free from things he'd like to change. You like to use the "Judge not" ploy if you need to make a debate point on occasion. You've certainly appointed yourself judge, jury and executioner for one Donald J. Trump though.

Trump lied about an incident that happened 25 years ago. That is the salient point. You seem willing to forgive Trump for all sins, past, present, and future. This is not a court of law, it is a political campaign. Admitting mistakes that one made 25 years ago is admirable. Lying about them to get elected to a political office is not. You have shown a strong preference for attacking Trump's critics over holding him accountable for anything.

Trump having an imaginary publicist at the age of 44 who gave interviews to People magazine and other media outlets was not exactly a youthful transgression and lying about the incident at the age of 69 certainly does not reflect well upon his character. Yet in your mind, my pointing out Trump's numerous lies makes me a character assassin. That is an upside way of looking at the world.

[TheRealThing]

Trump lied about an incident that happened 25 years ago. That is the salient point. You seem willing to forgive Trump for all sins, past, present, and future. This is not a court of law, it is a political campaign. Admitting mistakes that one made 25 years ago is admirable. Lying about them to get elected to a political office is not. You have shown a strong preference for attacking Trump's critics over holding him accountable for anything.

Trump having an imaginary publicist at the age of 44 who gave interviews to People magazine and other media outlets was not exactly a youthful transgression and lying about the incident at the age of 69 certainly does not reflect well upon his character. Yet in your mind, my pointing out Trump's numerous lies makes me a character assassin. That is an upside way of looking at the world.

That is patently false. I didn't defend him about the Miller deal. And I have criticized him for his loose cannon of a mouth in the recent past. I would however, take the time to see what it is all about rather than taking to print in an attempt to destroy him. If he lied, it will come out. But like I said, unflattering things like that would be an embarrassment, and at least in this case, have little to do with the problems we all face. And frankly, my guess is that the vast majority of men breathing air at this time would be hard pressed not to lie in similarly unflattering circumstances. They don't call it digging dirt for honorable reasons. It is character assassination pure and simple and for my money, you're doing your part wittingly or not to put Hillary in the White House. Unfortunately character does not seem to be much of a consideration these days. But his character profile is none the less light years better if he even half way lives up to his promises. And as profiles go, I know you've seen the list of Presidents who have closets crammed full of skeletons. The standard you seem to be demanding would be apt for a Baptist Pastor, but a politician? Not in my lifetime.

And the rest of your rationale is even weaker and less applicable. You're not going to gripe your way into a situation where Trump is cast out by the GOP and another candidate is parachuted in. You can mount up hearsay and falsehoods until you can't muster another slam, but in my opinion it is not going to happen. If my perspectives are errant, time will tell and I will admit my mistakes. If Trump is 100% guilty of posing as his own publicist, as I have correctly pointed out, in comparing to the Clinton scandals on a scale of 1 to 10, Trump's offense would not so much as budge the needle.

In any event, given the two likely nominees, it would seem to me that you are accomplishing little more than poisoning the well at this point. And I will make a prediction. Sooner or later the anti-Trump movement is going to print something that will be sensational at first but will be disproven soon thereafter, and things will all go against them from that point on.

[Hoot Gibson]

That is patently false. I didn't defend him about the Miller deal. And I have criticized him for his loose cannon of a mouth in the recent past. I would however, take the time to see what it is all about rather than taking to print in an attempt to destroy him. If he lied, it will come out. But like I said, unflattering things like that would be an embarrassment, and at least in this case, have little to do with the problems we all face. And frankly, my guess is that the vast majority of men breathing air at this time would be hard pressed not to lie in similarly unflattering circumstances. They don't call it digging dirt for honorable reasons. It is character assassination pure and simple and for my money, you're doing your part wittingly or not to put Hillary in the White House. Unfortunately character does not seem to be much of a consideration these days. But his character profile is none the less light years better if he even half way lives up to his promises. And as profiles go, I know you've seen the list of Presidents who have closets crammed full of skeletons. The standard you seem to be demanding would be apt for a Baptist Pastor, but a politician? Not in my lifetime.

And the rest of your rationale is even weaker and less applicable. You're not going to gripe your way into a situation where Trump is cast out by the GOP and another candidate is parachuted in. You can mount up hearsay and falsehoods until you can't muster another slam, but in my opinion it is not going to happen. If my perspectives are errant, time will tell and I will admit my mistakes. If Trump is 100% guilty of posing as his own publicist, as I have correctly pointed out, in comparing to the Clinton scandals on a scale of 1 to 10, Trump's offense would not so much as budge the needle.

In any event, given the two likely nominees, it would seem to me that you are accomplishing little more than poisoning the well at this point. And I will make a prediction. Sooner or later the anti-Trump movement is going to print something that will be sensational at first but will be disproven soon thereafter, and things will all go against them from that point on.

Once again, I have criticized Trump, so you go after me. That has become your pattern of behavior. BTW, Trump admitted under oath in 1990 that he had posed as a publicist for himself by the name of John Barron. No audio recordings of the imaginary Mr. Barron have surfaced yet. The journalist who interviewed Mr. Miller has stated that she did not leak the tape and suggested that Trump may have leaked it himself. Note that she recalled interviewing "Miller" and later losing the tape when she moved between apartments.

What Trump did to promote himself as a 40 some year old developer is bad enough, but not necessarily a disqualifier for the office of president. Lying about such an incident at the ripe old age of 69 as a presidential candidate in an election year should concern even Trump's most enthusiastic supporters.

I am not wittingly or unwittingly doing anything to help elect Hillary Clinton. The people who cast votes for a nutcase named Donald Trump are helping her campaign.

You have repeatedly criticized me for making predictions. Yet you speak with absolute certainty that country would be worse off with Hillary Clinton as president as Donald Trump. That smacks of hypocrisy to me but I am sure that you will continue to insult me for criticizing Trump.

[RunItUpTheGut]

A recent survey shows Hoot has changed the minds of 2 voters in this country by starting this thread.

Both voters now see how Crazy Cruz supporters are and have decided to go all in for Trump over Hillary this November. They know Trump is rightful heir to the throne if he survived these crazies.

[Hoot Gibson]

A recent survey shows Hoot has changed the minds of 2 voters in this country by starting this thread.

Both voters now see how Crazy Cruz supporters are and have decided to go all in for Trump over Hillary this November. They know Trump is rightful heir to the throne if he survived these crazies.

It is good to see you at last make an attempt at making a humorous post. There is a grain of truth in your post as well. Trump is seeking to become our second consecutive imperial president. He is already making threats to take revenge on his enemies using the power of the federal government.

Unfortunately for Trump, he is not smart enough to avoid stating his plans in public. Hillary would also make illegal attacks on her enemies, just as her husband Mr. Hillary did, but she is not stupid enough to confess to future crimes that she has not yet committed.

Kentucky is one of the very few states that Trump will almost surely win. If your idea of crazy is opposing dishonest bullies who are totally unqualified to be president, then I confess to being doubly crazy because I am proud to be opposing two such candidates in this election. When candidates start threatening private citizens before an election, it is time to just say no.

[TheRealThing]

Once again, I have criticized Trump, so you go after me. That has become your pattern of behavior. BTW, Trump admitted under oath in 1990 that he had posed as a publicist for himself by the name of John Barron. No audio recordings of the imaginary Mr. Barron have surfaced yet. The journalist who interviewed Mr. Miller has stated that she did not leak the tape and suggested that Trump may have leaked it himself. Note that she recalled interviewing "Miller" and later losing the tape when she moved between apartments.

What Trump did to promote himself as a 40 some year old developer is bad enough, but not necessarily a disqualifier for the office of president. Lying about such an incident at the ripe old age of 69 as a presidential candidate in an election year should concern even Trump's most enthusiastic supporters.

I am not wittingly or unwittingly doing anything to help elect Hillary Clinton. The people who cast votes for a nutcase named Donald Trump are helping her campaign.

You have repeatedly criticized me for making predictions. Yet you speak with absolute certainty that country would be worse off with Hillary Clinton as president as Donald Trump. That smacks of hypocrisy to me but I am sure that you will continue to insult me for criticizing Trump.

LOL, well it smacks of the obvious to me.