[Hoot Gibson]

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

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

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

I think that I will exercise my God given and Constitutional right not to explain myself further to a sanctimonious, dishonest jerk who insists on insulting me at every opportunity. You posts are consistently long on words and short on content.

[TheRealThing]

I think that I will exercise my God given and Constitutional right not to explain myself further to a sanctimonious, dishonest jerk who insists on insulting me at every opportunity. You posts are consistently long on words and short on content.

Your honor, the prosecution rests.

[Hoot Gibson]

Your honor, the prosecution rests.

Thank you for your brevity. Short, nonsensical posts are a welcome improvement over your long, nonsensical posts.

[RunItUpTheGut]

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

All you had to say was you support Hillary instead of rambling off 100 paragraphs and post that nobody reads.
A no vote is a vote for Hillary. You have a choice and setting out is not an option.

[Hoot Gibson]

All you had to say was you support Hillary instead of rambling off 100 paragraphs and post that nobody reads.
A no vote is a vote for Hillary. You have a choice and setting out is not an option.

You have to be the worst moderator ever! :biglmao:

If a vote against Trump is a vote for Hillary, then a vote against Hillary is a vote for Trump. I am voting against Hillary.

It really won't matter who I vote for in Virginia, Trump is going to lose either way.

BTW, you set out silverware on a table. You sit out on the porch. I have no intention of sitting out this election.

[RunItUpTheGut]

You have to be the worst moderator ever! :biglmao:

If a vote against Trump is a vote for Hillary, then a vote against Hillary is a vote for Trump. I am voting against Hillary.

It really won't matter who I vote for in Virginia, Trump is going to lose either way.

BTW, you set out silverware on a table. You sit out on the porch. I have no intention of sitting out this election.

As usual, you come at someone with an insult that has nothing to do with the falsehoods youre spitting out. It shows that your frustrated. Nothing I said has anything to do with my moderating capabilities, not that I care if they did. Its not like we have a busy schedule :biglmao:

Its okay to admit that you are a Hillary supporter. Everyone already knows this. Covering your frustrations with grammar policing only makes your argument weaker. But keep trying, its not like all four of us here on this forum doesn't think you aren't a big political tough guy. It must be tough for someone who shows himself as this great political mind was more wrong that Karl Rove in 2012. Wheres ole Teddy at now a days. Oops sorry, should have been a question mark there ???? :eyeroll:

[Hoot Gibson]

As usual, you come at someone with an insult that has nothing to do with the falsehoods youre spitting out. It shows that your frustrated. Nothing I said has anything to do with my moderating capabilities, not that I care if they did. Its not like we have a busy schedule :biglmao:

Its okay to admit that you are a Hillary supporter. Everyone already knows this. Covering your frustrations with grammar policing only makes your argument weaker. But keep trying, its not like all four of us here on this forum doesn't think you aren't a big political tough guy. It must be tough for someone who shows himself as this great political mind was more wrong that Karl Rove in 2012. Wheres ole Teddy at now a days. Oops sorry, should have been a question mark there ???? :eyeroll:

More insults and lies from a moderator who rarely adds anything substantive to a debate. As for your moderating skills, the least that a moderator should do is to set a good example. A moderator, or a regular member for that matter, who responds to insults against a politician with personal attacks has some real issues.

It's okay, 'Gut, I realize that you do not know enough about politics to actually debate any topic. As for grammar policing, I hardly ever point out your poor grammar and spelling. You keep me too busy pointing out your lack of knowledge and meaningless babbling. nicker:

[RunItUpTheGut]

I didn't know it was a requirement to satisfy your demands. Set a good example on what? You are talking politics on a sports forum in front of an audience of 4 people max and you think you've got a crown the size of a Donald Trump rally.

I am curious about one thing though, you seem to respond to everyone's post just a few minutes after they post. It is very important for you to get the last word in. Almost as important as getting Hillary elected.

Seems a man with such a broad social life like being buddies with American generals and stuff wouldn't be behind there keyboard 24 hours a day :biglmao:

[Hoot Gibson]

I didn't know it was a requirement to satisfy your demands. Set a good example on what? You are talking politics on a sports forum in front of an audience of 4 people max and you think you've got a crown the size of a Donald Trump rally.

I am curious about one thing though, you seem to respond to everyone's post just a few minutes after they post. It is very important for you to get the last word in. Almost as important as getting Hillary elected.

Seems a man with such a broad social life like being buddies with American generals and stuff wouldn't be behind there keyboard 24 hours a day :biglmao:

That's funny stuff. A loser who has almost three times as many posts as I do over the same period of time ridiculing my lack of a social life. A man who who is a moderator on a sports forum posting about politics who knows nothing about either topic. Talk about a sad life! :biglmao:

[LWC]

What I cannot understand is people who were willing to vote for McCain in 2008 and for Romney in 2012 who are unwilling to vote for Trump in 2016. To me, Trump is a better candidate than either of them ever were. Also, Obama, for all of his numerous faults was charismatic, young, and could stir up a constituency. McCain was a loser and Romney had a small chance but employed the worst presidential campaign strategy I have ever seen.

The difference in Romney and Trump to me from a strategy standpoint is that Romney was rich but hid from his riches. He almost seemed ashamed to have money. Trump flaunts it everywhere. In a down economy when people are starving they want to see an example of the american dream. Trump for all of his bravado and arrogance is doing a genius thing: he is offering to take America up with him. Romney seemed to run away from his riches and change the subject if it was discussed. Was that some of his humility, maybe. Do I value humility, absolutely. Is humility a necessary trait in a presidential candidate? NO! The only two places that humility is a bad thing is politics and a job interview. I've heard it said that running for the Presidency of the United States is the ultimate job interview.

Romney's candidacy sunk when a joke was made of his "binders full of women". Trump has had 3 public marriages/divorces, has made an empire with casinos, has called women ugly, fat, and other things, and the world knows it. Why is he doing so well? It is because the world knew those faults going in. Nobody has ever been as vetted as Trump. The whole world knows his garbage because he has lived in the spotlight. Also, he does not run from his words. McCain and Romney would run from anything and apologize if anyone was ever offended. Trump seems to say, "so what?"

What is happening is that people are starting to hear some good things about Trump. Slowly but surely private stories are coming out when he gets slammed. The best example I can think of is when the New York Times recently ran their slam piece and tons of women came on news radio, tv, magazines, newspapers, etc... to refute the NYT's claims and tell stories of how much they love Donald. What the NYT intended to sink Trump has actually been a factor is his numbers rising.

Last point, just 1 week ago today Hillary was up 50-39 over Trump in nationwide head-to-head polls (not the most reliable but it feeds media stories) but today I looked and the last few polls have Trump by 1 and Hillary by 1.

In battle-ground state head to head polls, (which matter more) Hillary only leads Trump by 2, in Ohio Hillary leads by an average of 1.4 (Trump leads one of the two most recent polls, Hillary leads the other), in Pennsylvania Hillary leads by 1, Trump leads every head-to-head poll in Georgia, Trump leads by 4 in the only polls taken since late April in North Carolina, Clinton is destroying Trump in Wisconsin still, in the only polls posted Trump is destroying Clinton in Indiana, and finally, in the only polls posted Trump is destroying Clinton in Missouri.

So, Trump appears to have a more than considerable shot of winning if he can win over Blue voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. I say this because the states that are Red states are rather solidly Red and even if people vote for obvious loser 3rd party candidates, enough will still vote for Trump.

Believe it or not, I'm rather confident that Trump will win. I am an ABC voter (Anyone But Clinton) so because I so desperately want her to lose, I will vote for Trump.

I believe that Trump is pro-coal and natural gas and Hillary has been on record as wanting to put coal out of business so that alone should convince KY, Pennsylvania, and WV to vote for him.

[Hoot Gibson]

What I cannot understand is people who were willing to vote for McCain in 2008 and for Romney in 2012 who are unwilling to vote for Trump in 2016. To me, Trump is a better candidate than either of them ever were. Also, Obama, for all of his numerous faults was charismatic, young, and could stir up a constituency. McCain was a loser and Romney had a small chance but employed the worst presidential campaign strategy I have ever seen.

The difference in Romney and Trump to me from a strategy standpoint is that Romney was rich but hid from his riches. He almost seemed ashamed to have money. Trump flaunts it everywhere. In a down economy when people are starving they want to see an example of the american dream. Trump for all of his bravado and arrogance is doing a genius thing: he is offering to take America up with him. Romney seemed to run away from his riches and change the subject if it was discussed. Was that some of his humility, maybe. Do I value humility, absolutely. Is humility a necessary trait in a presidential candidate? NO! The only two places that humility is a bad thing is politics and a job interview. I've heard it said that running for the Presidency of the United States is the ultimate job interview.

Romney's candidacy sunk when a joke was made of his "binders full of women". Trump has had 3 public marriages/divorces, has made an empire with casinos, has called women ugly, fat, and other things, and the world knows it. Why is he doing so well? It is because the world knew those faults going in. Nobody has ever been as vetted as Trump. The whole world knows his garbage because he has lived in the spotlight. Also, he does not run from his words. McCain and Romney would run from anything and apologize if anyone was ever offended. Trump seems to say, "so what?"

What is happening is that people are starting to hear some good things about Trump. Slowly but surely private stories are coming out when he gets slammed. The best example I can think of is when the New York Times recently ran their slam piece and tons of women came on news radio, tv, magazines, newspapers, etc... to refute the NYT's claims and tell stories of how much they love Donald. What the NYT intended to sink Trump has actually been a factor is his numbers rising.

Last point, just 1 week ago today Hillary was up 50-39 over Trump in nationwide head-to-head polls (not the most reliable but it feeds media stories) but today I looked and the last few polls have Trump by 1 and Hillary by 1.

In battle-ground state head to head polls, (which matter more) Hillary only leads Trump by 2, in Ohio Hillary leads by an average of 1.4 (Trump leads one of the two most recent polls, Hillary leads the other), in Pennsylvania Hillary leads by 1, Trump leads every head-to-head poll in Georgia, Trump leads by 4 in the only polls taken since late April in North Carolina, Clinton is destroying Trump in Wisconsin still, in the only polls posted Trump is destroying Clinton in Indiana, and finally, in the only polls posted Trump is destroying Clinton in Missouri.

So, Trump appears to have a more than considerable shot of winning if he can win over Blue voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. I say this because the states that are Red states are rather solidly Red and even if people vote for obvious loser 3rd party candidates, enough will still vote for Trump.

Believe it or not, I'm rather confident that Trump will win. I am an ABC voter (Anyone But Clinton) so because I so desperately want her to lose, I will vote for Trump.

I believe that Trump is pro-coal and natural gas and Hillary has been on record as wanting to put coal out of business so that alone should convince KY, Pennsylvania, and WV to vote for him.

Great post, LWC. I agree 100 percent with what you said about McCain and Romney, and I voted for both of them. I also felt the same about Bob Dole, and I voted for him. After Romney ran to the middle in 2012 and refused to aggressively attack Obama's miserable record, I resolved never to settle for whatever candidate the Republicans nominated again. I promised myself to never support another presidential candidate who does not earn my vote. The was my decision before the 2016 campaign even began.

Despite having deep reservations about Trump, I kept an open mind and did not immediately dismiss him as a candidate, as I did many of the 17 candidates who sought the GOP nomination. However, I concluded that Trump lacks the character and integrity that I expect my president to have.

As I have said many times, I do not fault people who have decided that Trump is the lesser of two evils and plan to cast votes for him. That is exactly what I did in voting for Dole, McCain, and Romney (although before the general campaign, I believed Romney had great potential). I was also not a big fan of George W. Bush, but did not feel like I was holding my nose when I voted for him.

I disagree that Trump is a better candidate than the past few Republican candidates. He has been the beneficiary of a GOP plan to split the conservative vote to pave the way for Jeb Bush but Jeb was such a weak president, Trump stepped into his lane and ran away with the nomination. Trump also benefited from having nearly 100 percent name recognition as a reality show host. Now, Trump is facing the weakest Democrat candidate since George McGovern.

A Republican candidate running neck and neck with a liberal Democrat who should already be in jail is not an indication of a strong candidate, IMO. A strong candidate would already be mopping the floor with her.

If I did not believe that Trump is a pathological liar, then I would vote for him based on his comments about the coal industry and his pledge to nominate conservative Supreme Court justices. I considered Romney, Dole, and Bush to be honorable, trustworthy men. Compared to Trump, I consider McCain to be an honorable man, and I absolutely disrespect McCain for his service in the U.S. Senate and find him a despicable human being.

I don't know if you are old enough to have followed the Dole campaign closely, but Dole had a sharp, sarcastic wit before he won the GOP nomination. The GOP muzzled Dole during the general campaign and he became a very boring candidate who stuck to his scripted speeches. I already see signs of the same thing happening with Trump. Accepting a debate with Bernie Sanders was typical Trump. Backing out of that debate had the GOP's fingerprints all over it.

Trump's campaign is nearly broke. He has shown that he is not willing to spend much of his own fortune to get elected. Trump will be just as dependent on the national GOP for funding as past candidates have been. If Trump falters, the GOP will reduce his share of the pie and try to save as many House and Senate seats as possible.

Thanks again for your excellent post. Such posts have become a rarity in this forum.

[TheRealThing]

What I cannot understand is people who were willing to vote for McCain in 2008 and for Romney in 2012 who are unwilling to vote for Trump in 2016. To me, Trump is a better candidate than either of them ever were. Also, Obama, for all of his numerous faults was charismatic, young, and could stir up a constituency. McCain was a loser and Romney had a small chance but employed the worst presidential campaign strategy I have ever seen.

The difference in Romney and Trump to me from a strategy standpoint is that Romney was rich but hid from his riches. He almost seemed ashamed to have money. Trump flaunts it everywhere. In a down economy when people are starving they want to see an example of the american dream. Trump for all of his bravado and arrogance is doing a genius thing: he is offering to take America up with him. Romney seemed to run away from his riches and change the subject if it was discussed. Was that some of his humility, maybe. Do I value humility, absolutely. Is humility a necessary trait in a presidential candidate? NO! The only two places that humility is a bad thing is politics and a job interview. I've heard it said that running for the Presidency of the United States is the ultimate job interview.

Romney's candidacy sunk when a joke was made of his "binders full of women". Trump has had 3 public marriages/divorces, has made an empire with casinos, has called women ugly, fat, and other things, and the world knows it. Why is he doing so well? It is because the world knew those faults going in. Nobody has ever been as vetted as Trump. The whole world knows his garbage because he has lived in the spotlight. Also, he does not run from his words. McCain and Romney would run from anything and apologize if anyone was ever offended. Trump seems to say, "so what?"

What is happening is that people are starting to hear some good things about Trump. Slowly but surely private stories are coming out when he gets slammed. The best example I can think of is when the New York Times recently ran their slam piece and tons of women came on news radio, tv, magazines, newspapers, etc... to refute the NYT's claims and tell stories of how much they love Donald. What the NYT intended to sink Trump has actually been a factor is his numbers rising.

Last point, just 1 week ago today Hillary was up 50-39 over Trump in nationwide head-to-head polls (not the most reliable but it feeds media stories) but today I looked and the last few polls have Trump by 1 and Hillary by 1.

In battle-ground state head to head polls, (which matter more) Hillary only leads Trump by 2, in Ohio Hillary leads by an average of 1.4 (Trump leads one of the two most recent polls, Hillary leads the other), in Pennsylvania Hillary leads by 1, Trump leads every head-to-head poll in Georgia, Trump leads by 4 in the only polls taken since late April in North Carolina, Clinton is destroying Trump in Wisconsin still, in the only polls posted Trump is destroying Clinton in Indiana, and finally, in the only polls posted Trump is destroying Clinton in Missouri.

So, Trump appears to have a more than considerable shot of winning if he can win over Blue voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. I say this because the states that are Red states are rather solidly Red and even if people vote for obvious loser 3rd party candidates, enough will still vote for Trump.

Believe it or not, I'm rather confident that Trump will win. I am an ABC voter (Anyone But Clinton) so because I so desperately want her to lose, I will vote for Trump.

I believe that Trump is pro-coal and natural gas and Hillary has been on record as wanting to put coal out of business so that alone should convince KY, Pennsylvania, and WV to vote for him.

That indeed was a great post LWC. And I agree with 100% of all of it. You're exactly right in your observations and expectations of Mr Trump and I applaud you for clear minded lucidity.

And I could not agree more with your belief that Mr Trump will win this fall. Possibly the first man who does not run from his words to come along since Reagan. I respect anybody who knows who he is and what right is. He's called a spade a spade since his announcement, and the people love him for doing so. Case in point would be his candor during the first debate when he explained why he knew candidates are for sale. They had come to him in times past and promised any quid pro quo in which he may have an interest because they were desperate for money. He beat the field on his own money and as I have pointed out on a number of occasions, anyone contributing at this late date is buying into what he has campaigned and won the nomination on.

The poor shipwrecked souls of the Titanic, has they had opportunity would have happily climbed aboard the very steamer to come by, they certainly would not have held out for another luxury liner as the #NeverTrumps have vowed to do.

[WideRight05]

That indeed was a great post LWC. And I agree with 100% of all of it. You're exactly right in your observations and expectations of Mr Trump and I applaud you for clear minded lucidity.

And I could not agree more with your belief that Mr Trump will win this fall. Possibly the first man who does not run from his words to come along since Reagan. I respect anybody who knows who he is and what right is. He's called a spade a spade since his announcement, and the people love him for doing so. Case in point would be his candor during the first debate when he explained why he knew candidates are for sale. They had come to him in times past and promised any quid pro quo in which he may have an interest because they were desperate for money. He beat the field on his own money and as I have pointed out on a number of occasions, anyone contributing at this late date is buying into what he has campaigned and won the nomination on.

The poor shipwrecked souls of the Titanic, has they had opportunity would have happily climbed aboard the very steamer to come by, they certainly would not have held out for another luxury liner as the #NeverTrumps have vowed to do.

I enjoyed reading your post, but I would differ that Trump used his own money for his campaign. He gave himself a loan, which is nothing unusual and common amongst political candidates. But it's likely he will pay that back from the amount he receives in the general election which, to my knowledge, he mentioned he would not be self-financing that - which I don't see anything wrong with. Where I do find fault, is him stating he would self-finance the primary while paying himself a loan that he intended to pay back during the general election through funding he receives.

My mind is still open to Trump, but I also feel set on Darrell Castle. At this point I just can't find enough consistency in Trump to satisfy me and I just don't like the attitude I am seeing from the movement. Honestly, I think he has told people in the Republican Party most of what they want to hear. The way he treated some of the other candidates (leaving Ted Cruz out of this) and considering he is surrounding himself with more establishment candidates (e.g. Christie) instead of making a big push to try to attract the Mike Lee and Ben Sasse types is a red flag to me.

We'll see what happens these next few months. I'll go ahead and say this just to get it out of the way. If someone from the Republican Party tries to run as a third party, I won't vote for them. Darrell Castle would have been in this race had it been Donald Trump or any of the other 16 Republicans winning. The third party run by a Republican such as Romney or Cotton would be just to draw protest votes. So they will not receive my vote either.

[TheRealThing]

I enjoyed reading your post, but I would differ that Trump used his own money for his campaign. He gave himself a loan, which is nothing unusual and common amongst political candidates. But it's likely he will pay that back from the amount he receives in the general election which, to my knowledge, he mentioned he would not be self-financing that - which I don't see anything wrong with. Where I do find fault, is him stating he would self-finance the primary while paying himself a loan that he intended to pay back during the general election through funding he receives.

My mind is still open to Trump, but I also feel set on Darrell Castle. At this point I just can't find enough consistency in Trump to satisfy me and I just don't like the attitude I am seeing from the movement. Honestly, I think he has told people in the Republican Party most of what they want to hear. The way he treated some of the other candidates (leaving Ted Cruz out of this) and considering he is surrounding himself with more establishment candidates (e.g. Christie) instead of making a big push to try to attract the Mike Lee and Ben Sasse types is a red flag to me.

We'll see what happens these next few months. I'll go ahead and say this just to get it out of the way. If someone from the Republican Party tries to run as a third party, I won't vote for them. Darrell Castle would have been in this race had it been Donald Trump or any of the other 16 Republicans winning. The third party run by a Republican such as Romney or Cotton would be just to draw protest votes. So they will not receive my vote either.

LOL, differing is allowed but let me ask you a question. If you make yourself a loan whose money are you using? Anybody who makes contributions now does so after the political train has left the station. If the RNC tries to dictate terms with their money, Trump will blow their cover.

To my knowledge, the US Constitution Party has not won a single seat in the House or the Senate, nary a electoral vote for President and have only cracked the .20 vote percentile twice in their history for any federal office. I'd say your exactly right about 3rd party being protest votes, respectfully, I don't know that it would be justifiable to carve the votes Castle will get this time from protest votes though. If you add up every Presidential vote cast for the Constitution Party going all the way back to 1992 you'd still be far from 1 million votes cast in the history of the party all told.

[WideRight05]

LOL, differing is allowed but let me ask you a question. If you make yourself a loan whose money are you using? Anybody who makes contributions now does so after the political train has left the station. If the RNC tries to dictate terms with their money, Trump will blow their cover.

To my knowledge, the US Constitution Party has not won a single seat in the House or the Senate, nary a electoral vote for President and have only cracked the .20 vote percentile twice in their history for any federal office. I'd say your exactly right about 3rd party being protest votes, respectfully, I don't know that it would be justifiable to carve the votes Castle will get this time from protest votes though. If you add up every Presidential vote cast for the Constitution Party going all the way back to 1992 you'd still be far from 1 million votes cast in the history of the party all told.

In my field of work I'm always dealing with loans in some form or fashion. These types of loans are often made a lot in small businesses, especially with how bad our economy is getting now.

If Trump openly decided not to finance his own campaign and rely on outside support, that would be one thing. But he mislead people into believing that he was using his own money to pay for everything when he fully intends to pay that back through future donations. He may be paying himself the money for right now, but if he intends to have that paid back through lobbyists at a later time then there's no difference between what him and other candidates are doing. Trump is just getting his donations at a later time than the other candidates. I am just not seeing the good sides of him as you are, TRT, with a couple of exceptions that I do like. I just think he is capitalizing on people's emotions and telling them what they want to hear.

Regarding Darrell Castle and his party, yes, the Constitution Party doesn't have a strong history. But he's also the candidate that aligns the closest to my values. The Constitution Party is sending the types of candidates that the Republican Party should be sending. I won't vote for Hillary Clinton at all, I just can't gather enough trust in Donald Trump, I won't vote Green Party, and I won't vote for the Libertarian Party candidate because he is socially liberal. I won't vote for Bill Kristol, because he's just running to stop Trump. Who does that leave me with? Darrell Castle. Things might change after seeing Hillary Clinton for a few weeks on the national trail, but in all likelihood I plan on sticking with the candidate closest to my values.

[WideRight05]

Accidentally double posted. Could a mod please delete? Thank you.

[TheRealThing]

In my field of work I'm always dealing with loans in some form or fashion. These types of loans are often made a lot in small businesses, especially with how bad our economy is getting now.

If Trump openly decided not to finance his own campaign and rely on outside support, that would be one thing. But he mislead people into believing that he was using his own money to pay for everything when he fully intends to pay that back through future donations. He may be paying himself the money for right now, but if he intends to have that paid back through lobbyists at a later time then there's no difference between what him and other candidates are doing. Trump is just getting his donations at a later time than the other candidates. I am just not seeing the good sides of him as you are, TRT, with a couple of exceptions that I do like. I just think he is capitalizing on people's emotions and telling them what they want to hear.

Regarding Darrell Castle and his party, yes, the Constitution Party doesn't have a strong history. But he's also the candidate that aligns the closest to my values. The Constitution Party is sending the types of candidates that the Republican Party should be sending. I won't vote for Hillary Clinton at all, I just can't gather enough trust in Donald Trump, I won't vote Green Party, and I won't vote for the Libertarian Party candidate because he is socially liberal. I won't vote for Bill Kristol, because he's just running to stop Trump. Who does that leave me with? Darrell Castle. Things might change after seeing Hillary Clinton for a few weeks on the national trail, but in all likelihood I plan on sticking with the candidate closest to my values.

Yeah the owners of small businesses are often forced to put personal money into their companies to keep them afloat. That being the case, there are laws that govern such arrangements such as articles of incorporation which govern dealings in these matters. And the IRS governs income and loss to make it possible to recoup any loses suffered in business. Trump's intent was to sidestep private donors in using money mostly from his own bank account, the two scenarios are different in my view.

[WideRight05]

Yeah the owners of small businesses are often forced to put personal money into their companies to keep them afloat. That being the case, there are laws that govern such arrangements such as articles of incorporation which govern dealings in these matters. And the IRS governs income and loss to make it possible to recoup any loses suffered in business. Trump's intent was to sidestep private donors in using money mostly from his own bank account, the two scenarios are different in my view.

They are different, I threw that in as more of a side note because your post just brought that to mind, about business loans. It's one thing what people see on the news about that. But if they saw first hand how deep business owners were digging into their pocketbooks, they would cringe.

As for Donald Trump, when he mentioned he would be self-financing his campaign I think everybody took it that his campaign expenses would be coming out of his pocket. I scratched my head as to why he was taking donations on his web page, but I figured maybe somewhere along the line he meant that he was just going to take donations from individuals and not from corporate lobbyists.

Let's put it this way. Say you're a small business owner, a rare one that is doing well in these difficult economic times. Let's say you're out shopping one day and see an excellent deal on a computer that you could use for your company. You decide to go ahead and buy it because it's the latest technology and has a bunch of neat perks that your accountant would be able to put to use in their day-to-day duties. You go ahead and purchase the $1,000 computer with your own money.

A month later, you get around to paying yourself back with the company money. Thus, was it really you that bought that computer, or was it the company?

That's the scenario we are dealing with concerning Donald Trump, on a larger scale. Trump took out a loan to pay his campaign finances, but he's not paying that back with his own money. He's will pay the money back with what he receives in donations from lobbyists in the general election cycle. It's a great way to make it look like he is paying for his primary campaign out of his own pocketbook when in reality, he is just taking the donations at a later time.

[TheRealThing]

They are different, I threw that in as more of a side note because your post just brought that to mind, about business loans. It's one thing what people see on the news about that. But if they saw first hand how deep business owners were digging into their pocketbooks, they would cringe.

As for Donald Trump, when he mentioned he would be self-financing his campaign I think everybody took it that his campaign expenses would be coming out of his pocket. I scratched my head as to why he was taking donations on his web page, but I figured maybe somewhere along the line he meant that he was just going to take donations from individuals and not from corporate lobbyists.

Let's put it this way. Say you're a small business owner, a rare one that is doing well in these difficult economic times. Let's say you're out shopping one day and see an excellent deal on a computer that you could use for your company. You decide to go ahead and buy it because it's the latest technology and has a bunch of neat perks that your accountant would be able to put to use in their day-to-day duties. You go ahead and purchase the $1,000 computer with your own money.

A month later, you get around to paying yourself back with the company money. Thus, was it really you that bought that computer, or was it the company?

That's the scenario we are dealing with concerning Donald Trump, on a larger scale. Trump took out a loan to pay his campaign finances, but he's not paying that back with his own money. He's will pay the money back with what he receives in donations from lobbyists in the general election cycle. It's a great way to make it look like he is paying for his primary campaign out of his own pocketbook when in reality, he is just taking the donations at a later time.

Let's say for the sake of conversation that I stipulate to your analysis as accurate. His platform and his mandate, whatever that might be, was already established before any meaningful donations were made. Donors must therefore get on board, or keep their money as the die is cast. That was his intent, to be a candidate who won the nomination away from the persuasive deep pocketed establishment string pullers in DC.. Any donations made now arguably missed the opportunity to shape this nominee's agenda. I don't see that as dishonest.

[Hoot Gibson]

Big donors are not opening up their wallets to Trump because they approve of the "suggestions" that Trump has made in public. They are parting with their money to buy access to Trump in case he wins in November. That's not a shot at Trump, it is true of every presidential candidate in modern history.

When Trump donated to candidates running in general elections - Presidential, Congressional, or statewide elections - does anybody believe that those donations were merely a way of saying thank you for what the candidates proposed during primary elections? Of course not, that's just not how our political system works. Trump expected a return on his investment, just like every big donor does.

A company can make or lose millions depending on whether the federal government approves the export of some dual use technology. Billionaires do not donate money to political candidates with no expectation of a return. As they say, the devil is in the details voters rarely learn the details.

The timing of donations is irrelevant. Politicians sell access to themselves and they listen to large donors describe their needs.

Trump's repeated claims to be self funded was dishonest. He accepted donations and he has loaned his campaign millions. If he loses in November, he is free to use the money raised in the general campaign to retire that debt by repaying himself. If he wins and is very successful at raising money from big donors, then maybe he will delay or forego paying the campaign debt for political reasons. Trump did not become a billionaire by leaving money on the table that was there for the taking.

If Trump was ever determined to self fund, then all he had to do was write checks to his campaign instead of issuing loans to the campaign.

Finally, if only money donated during the primary season influenced politicians, then why would large donors not just dump more money into candidates' coffers during the primaries and then let them fend for themselves during the general campaign?

The answer is that politicians never stop soliciting donations to campaigns as long as they intend to run in another election and they are just as glad to receive the money during a fall campaign as a spring campaign. A debt is a debt.

[TheRealThing]

Big donors are not opening up their wallets to Trump because they approve of the "suggestions" that Trump has made in public. They are parting with their money to buy access to Trump in case he wins in November. That's not a shot at Trump, it is true of every presidential candidate in modern history.

When Trump donated to candidates running in general elections - Presidential, Congressional, or statewide elections - does anybody believe that those donations were merely a way of saying thank you for what the candidates proposed during primary elections? Of course not, that's just not how our political system works. Trump expected a return on his investment, just like every big donor does.

A company can make or lose millions depending on whether the federal government approves the export of some dual use technology. Billionaires do not donate money to political candidates with no expectation of a return. As they say, the devil is in the details voters rarely learn the details.

The timing of donations is irrelevant. Politicians sell access to themselves and they listen to large donors describe their needs.

Trump's repeated claims to be self funded was dishonest. He accepted donations and he has loaned his campaign millions. If he loses in November, he is free to use the money raised in the general campaign to retire that debt by repaying himself. If he wins and is very successful at raising money from big donors, then maybe he will delay or forego paying the campaign debt for political reasons. Trump did not become a billionaire by leaving money on the table that was there for the taking.

If Trump was ever determined to self fund, then all he had to do was write checks to his campaign instead of issuing loans to the campaign.

Finally, if only money donated during the primary season influenced politicians, then why would large donors not just dump more money into candidates' coffers during the primaries and then let them fend for themselves during the general campaign?

The answer is that politicians never stop soliciting donations to campaigns as long as they intend to run in another election and they are just as glad to receive the money during a fall campaign as a spring campaign. A debt is a debt.

Relevant to you is a strange and wonderful thing I am sure, as is the tired, ever convoluting cul-de-sac of a rationale, that you insist in putting on display here over and over ad-nauseum. The point is that Trump is not just another in a line of establishment props, properly coopted into the establishment fold, (in this case the Keynesian, secular humanistic, social justice fold) and then paraded in front of the slumbering electorate who are then expected as in times past to dutifully pull the appropriate handle. The people went around the establishment this time. Unfortunately for you, they went for somebody you don't like. At any rate, you have no answer whatever except to attack every thing and every body, you admitted as much a few posts back.

But you are above the fray, are you not? You vote libertarian or 3rd party if memory of elections past serve. You're on here to get a circular firing squad going in hopes of one day seeing that libertarian candidate rise up like the Great Pumpkin out of the political pumpkin patch to become president. And after all, what with outside candidates knocking down upwards of one percent of the popular vote, your odds are getting better. :biggrin: I don't agree with you, Trump did self fund his campaign and was nominated. It is irrational to expect him to fund the campaign now that he is the nominee.

And as in the case of the Republican nominee, when you refused to accept the overwhelmingly obvious, you will continue to sidestep and deny long after the time of any shred of relevant influence has past. Nobody wants a president who thinks the issue of the day is legalizing drugs.

[64SUR]

The names of several people he is considering for the SCOTUS.

Everything below has been copied and pasted from Donald Trump's page. As of this point, I have no comment on the justices as I am yet to research them with the exception of a couple I know a bit about. But thought I would put this out there for discussion.

DONALD J. TRUMP RELEASES LIST OF POTENTIAL UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

(New York, NY) May 18, 2016 - Today Donald J. Trump released the much-anticipated list of people he would consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia at the United States Supreme Court. This list was compiled, first and foremost, based on constitutional principles, with input from highly respected
conservatives and Republican Party leadership.

Mr. Trump stated, “Justice Scalia was a remarkable person and a brilliant Supreme Court Justice. His career was defined by his reverence for the Constitution and his legacy of protecting Americans’ most cherished freedoms. He was a Justice who did not believe in legislating from the bench and he is a person whom I held in the highest regard and will always greatly respect his intelligence and conviction to uphold the Constitution of our country. Thfollowing list of potential Supreme Court justices is representative of the kind of constitutional principles I value and, as President, I plan to use this list as a guide to nominate our next United States Supreme Court Justices.”

Steven Colloton

Steven Colloton of Iowa is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth

Circuit, a position he has held since President George W. Bush appointed him in 2003. Judge Colloton has a résumé that also includes distinguished service as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, a Special Assistant to the Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and a lecturer of law at the University of Iowa. He received his law degree from Yale, and he clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Judge Colloton is an Iowa native.



Allison Eid

Allison Eid of Colorado is an associate justice of the Colorado Supreme Court. Colorado Governor Bill Owens appointed her to the seat in 2006; she was later retained for a full term by the voters (with 75% of voters favoring retention).
Prior to her judicial service, Justice Eid served as Colorado’s solicitor general and as a law professor at the University of Colorado. Justice Eid attended the University of Chicago Law School, and she clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.

Raymond Gruender

Raymond Gruender of Missouri has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit since his 2004 appointment by President George W. Bush. Judge Gruender, who sits in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensive prosecutorial
experience, culminating with his time as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. Judge Gruender received a law degree and an M.B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis.

Thomas Hardiman

Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit since 2007. Prior to serving as a circuit judge, he served as a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania since 2003. Before his judicial service, Judge Hardiman worked in private practice in Washington, D.C. and Pittsburgh. Judge Hardiman was the first in his family to attend college, graduating from Notre Dame.

Raymond Kethledge

Raymond Kethledge of Michigan has been a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit since 2008. Before his judicial service, Judge Kethledge served as judiciary counsel to Michigan Senator Spencer Abraham, worked as a partner in two law firms, and worked as an in-house counsel for the Ford Motor Company. Judge Kethledge obtained his law degree from the University of Michigan and clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Joan Larsen


Joan Larsen of Michigan is an Associate Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court. Justice Larsen was a professor at the University of Michigan School of Law from 1998 until her appointment to the bench. In 2002, she temporarily left academia to work as an Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Justice Larsen received her law degree from Northwestern and clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia.


Thomas Lee

Thomas Lee of Utah has been an Associate Justice of the Utah Supreme Court since 2010. Beginning in 1997, he served on the faculty of Brigham Young University Law School, where he still teaches in an adjunct capacity. Justice Lee was Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Civil Division from 2004 to 2005. Justice Lee attended the University of Chicago Law School,

and he clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Lee is also the son of former U.S. Solicitor General Rex Lee and the brother of current U.S. Senator Mike Lee.

William Pryor

William H. Pryor, Jr. of Alabama is a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He has served on the court since 2004. Judge Pryor became the Alabama Attorney General in 1997 upon Jeff Sessions’s election to the U.S. Senate. Judge Pryor was then elected in his own right in 1998 and reelected in 2002. In 2013, Judge Pryor was confirmed to a term on the United States Sentencing Commission. Judge Pryor received his law degree from Tulane, and he clerked for Judge John Minor Wisdom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

David Stras

David Stras of Minnesota has been an Associate Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court since 2010. After his initial appointment, he was elected to a six-year term in 2012. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Stras worked as a legal academic at the University of Minnesota Law School. In his time there, he wrote extensively about the function and structure of the judiciary. Justice Stras received his law degree and an M.B.A. from the University of Kansas. He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.


Diane Sykes

Diane Sykes of Wisconsin has served as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since 2004. Prior to her federal appointment, Judge Sykes had been a Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court since 1999 and a Wisconsin trial court judge of both civil and criminal matters before that. Judge Sykes
received her law degree from Marquette.

Don Willett

Don Willett of Texas has been a Justice of the Texas Supreme Court since 2005. He was initially appointed by Governor Rick Perry and has been reelected by the voters twice. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Willett worked as a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, as an advisor in George W. Bush’s
gubernatorial and presidential administrations, as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, and as a Deputy Attorney General under then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. Justice Willett received his law degree and a master’s degree from Duke.

Don't be shocked if Hillary don't use this lists also. Game on :pondering: Whatever it takes to win. Donald Duck peaking to soon. nicker:

[WideRight05]

Let's say for the sake of conversation that I stipulate to your analysis as accurate. His platform and his mandate, whatever that might be, was already established before any meaningful donations were made. Donors must therefore get on board, or keep their money as the die is cast. That was his intent, to be a candidate who won the nomination away from the persuasive deep pocketed establishment string pullers in DC.. Any donations made now arguably missed the opportunity to shape this nominee's agenda. I don't see that as dishonest.

Every other candidate had their platform established as well. Even Hillary has a platform listed with 31 issues on her website yet she is receiving large amounts of corporate funding.

I think we are going different directions on the donations, I will give a more succinct explanation in the first of the two paragraphs below.

The big thing I am after, I believe that Donald Trump did not tell the truth when he said that he was self-financing his campaign. In fact, I thought he would be self-financing his campaign the entire way. I wouldn't have faulted him at all for receiving donations from businesses as long as he stood up for what he believed in. I see no reason he would have given himself a loan unless it were to be paid back through corporate donors. The only difference between him and the other candidates is that he will be receiving his campaign donations at a later time than the others.

I just don't trust Donald Trump, in fact I see him more prone to cave to lobbyists than other candidates. Candidates such as Marco Rubio that received funding from big business have not caved on issues such as abortion and protecting marriage despite being under pressure from businesses to do so. One of the reasons Donald Trump said he was against HB2 in North Carolina was because of the supposed impact it was having on them economically. Thus, if it comes down to a moral decision where he is under pressure from the corporate world, I just don't see him having the same willingness of Matt Bevin of Kentucky, Phil Bryant of Mississippi, or Greg Abbott of Texas to fight against them to stand for moral decency.

[TheRealThing]

Every other candidate had their platform established as well. Even Hillary has a platform listed with 31 issues on her website yet she is receiving large amounts of corporate funding.

I think we are going different directions on the donations, I will give a more succinct explanation in the first of the two paragraphs below.

The big thing I am after, I believe that Donald Trump did not tell the truth when he said that he was self-financing his campaign. In fact, I thought he would be self-financing his campaign the entire way. I wouldn't have faulted him at all for receiving donations from businesses as long as he stood up for what he believed in. I see no reason he would have given himself a loan unless it were to be paid back through corporate donors. The only difference between him and the other candidates is that he will be receiving his campaign donations at a later time than the others.

I just don't trust Donald Trump, in fact I see him more prone to cave to lobbyists than other candidates. Candidates such as Marco Rubio that received funding from big business have not caved on issues such as abortion and protecting marriage despite being under pressure from businesses to do so. One of the reasons Donald Trump said he was against HB2 in North Carolina was because of the supposed impact it was having on them economically. Thus, if it comes down to a moral decision where he is under pressure from the corporate world, I just don't see him having the same willingness of Matt Bevin of Kentucky, Phil Bryant of Mississippi, or Greg Abbott of Texas to fight against them to stand for moral decency.

I guess I missed where Bevin, Bryant or Abbott are running for President this time. It's still between Hillary and Trump the last time I checked.

[RunItUpTheGut]

If Bevin continues to cut all the things I love to see get cut he may have a presidential chance in 8 years. He will need a lot more publicity but he has done a damn good job so far. Very pleased with him.

[WideRight05]

I guess I missed where Bevin, Bryant or Abbott are running for President this time. It's still between Hillary and Trump the last time I checked.

Will you please respond to the points I mentioned?

[Hoot Gibson]

Relevant to you is a strange and wonderful thing I am sure, as is the tired, ever convoluting cul-de-sac of a rationale, that you insist in putting on display here over and over ad-nauseum. The point is that Trump is not just another in a line of establishment props, properly coopted into the establishment fold, (in this case the Keynesian, secular humanistic, social justice fold) and then paraded in front of the slumbering electorate who are then expected as in times past to dutifully pull the appropriate handle. The people went around the establishment this time. Unfortunately for you, they went for somebody you don't like. At any rate, you have no answer whatever except to attack every thing and every body, you admitted as much a few posts back.

But you are above the fray, are you not? You vote libertarian or 3rd party if memory of elections past serve. You're on here to get a circular firing squad going in hopes of one day seeing that libertarian candidate rise up like the Great Pumpkin out of the political pumpkin patch to become president. And after all, what with outside candidates knocking down upwards of one percent of the popular vote, your odds are getting better. :biggrin: I don't agree with you, Trump did self fund his campaign and was nominated. It is irrational to expect him to fund the campaign now that he is the nominee.

And as in the case of the Republican nominee, when you refused to accept the overwhelmingly obvious, you will continue to sidestep and deny long after the time of any shred of relevant influence has past. Nobody wants a president who thinks the issue of the day is legalizing drugs.

Your posts are really not worth responding to any more, TRT. I did not insult you, nor did I insult Donald Trump in my post. I pride myself on my ability to judge character, but I was dead wrong about you.

[TheRealThing]

Your posts are really not worth responding to any more, TRT. I did not insult you, nor did I insult Donald Trump in my post. I pride myself on my ability to judge character, but I was dead wrong about you.

Oh I don't know, calling someone dishonest may be a compliment over your way, but around here them's fightin words. And you did say Trump was being dishonest, or did I miss something? Without wanting to rehash this thing for the umpteenth time, the fact that Billionaires will try to buy Trump once in office notwithstanding certainty or favor, doesn't mean anything as yet. Will Trump be bribed? If he is bribable he will succumb with or without campaign debt. It's just a matter of dreaming up a palatable rationalization.

[Hoot Gibson]

Oh I don't know, calling someone dishonest may be a compliment over your way, but around here them's fightin words. And you did say Trump was being dishonest, or did I miss something? Without wanting to rehash this thing for the umpteenth time, the fact that Billionaires will try to buy Trump once in office notwithstanding certainty or favor, doesn't mean anything as yet. Will Trump be bribed? If he is bribable he will succumb with or without campaign debt. It's just a matter of dreaming up a palatable rationalization.

It is a demonstrable fact that Trump lied about self funding his campaign. Only idiots respond to valid criticisms of a politician with personal insults aimed at his critics - and that is about all you do in your responses to my posts, TRT.

[TheRealThing]

Your posts are really not worth responding to any more, TRT. I did not insult you, nor did I insult Donald Trump in my post. I pride myself on my ability to judge character, but I was dead wrong about you.

It is a demonstrable fact that Trump lied about self funding his campaign. Only idiots respond to valid criticisms of a politician with personal insults aimed at his critics - and that is about all you do in your responses to my posts, TRT.

I really wonder about you these days. One minute you're insulting Trump in calling him dishonest, and then denying it. Only to call him a liar outright in your very next post. I mean, I got a few score cards laying around here left over from golfing, but even they aren't any help when it comes to keeping up with your claims and denials.