Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 12
    Posted by Mamaemma 3 years ago
    Freedom, today I waited in the checkout line behind a woman who I am pretty sure was an illegal alien, watched her pay for her groceries with an EBT card, then happened to be parked across from her as I was getting in my car. When she saw that I saw her lighting her cigarette, she pointed at me and threw her head back and laughed. The whole incident pissed me off so much, and I thought, now THAT'S why people are voting for Trump. It has nothing to do with his "business acumen". People just feel angry and hopeless.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years ago
      I know what you mean, Mamaemma. Voting for a looter clown who says things he never intends to do will not make things any better. But that is what universal suffrage gets us, sufferage of the productive.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ritzenhauf 2 years, 12 months ago
        NB: Canada's Justin Trudeau. Elected 142 days ago promising to hold the deficit to $10 billion for three years, then bring the budget to balance, already "spurring growth" with $113-billion deficit.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
      I see that, but I would like to see a level of competence. Someone who can build things. The majority of our leaders, educated at the top schools, would probably be unable to profitably run a hot dog stand.

      Senator George McGovern, after he left office went into business -- and actually learned something.

      "After two and a half years that mixed pleasure and satisfaction with the loss of all my earnings from nearly a decade of post-Senate lecture tours, I gave up on the Stratford Inn. But not before learning some painful and valuable lessons."

      http://www.inc.com/magazine/19931201/...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 3 years ago
        There are a lot better choices of producers who have a record of success without looting.
        Gary Johnson is one good example, and he is running for president, too.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
          And has zero chance of winning. I know, if we all voted for him he would win -- but if that were remotely possible he would be polling well.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years ago
            But the left has zero chance of losing....and that's all right with you?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by BillForce 2 years, 12 months ago
              Wrong providing we throw her fat butt in jail before the election. Instead of promoting Trump or Cruz we should have a giant concerted effort to have her prosecuted which will render her inert.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
              I think you have to generally support whichever candidate you think is best (or least evil) who has a feasible chance to win. No one who is polling in single digits does.

              Now I will admit that I wait until after work to vote. As a Californian there are times when the election has been called before I get home. Then I vote Libertarian since I can't effect the outcome and I want to send a message.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 3 years ago
                Rubbish.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
                  The decision is whether you want to make a statement or have an effect on the outcome. I generally think it's better to have an effect on the outcome, you may well feel otherwise.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 3 years ago
                    When something has the opposite effect of my goals for 30 years I don't repeat the error. I think that you (and others) assume that your action in voting for the GOP has the effect of slower evil destruction of liberty than a vote for a Democrat. I think this is called "voting for a lesser evil. " The problem is that you are following the insidious plan of the statists. You are contributing to the opposite of your goal by your own consent. The record of history is clear on this. You repeating that the third party has no chance does not change this fact. Your assumption is false. This is the method of statists and fascist-socialists. You must take a longer view because taking the short view does not work; it only contributes to the goals of your enemy. As long as you continue to act in the way that is designed by the statists to gradually reduce your liberty the result will be your gradual enslavement. Had you (et al) acted to vote on principle 20 years ago and resisted the temptation to vote for the supposed lesser evil, you would have contributed to the return to liberty, smaller government, and free markets. As long as you continue to repeat the errors of the past you will consent to your own and others' enslavement by statists and looters.
                    You have the opportunity to act in favor of a return to liberty.
                    Stop wasting your vote and stop consenting to the statists' plan.
                    Vote based on principle for Gary Johnson, not based on fear.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by lwr32 2 years, 10 months ago
                      I will vote for Gary Johnson, as I did last year. When asked who I will vote for, I am not afraid to say Gary Johnson. I'm then asked who he is. My question is why is it Gary Johnson isn't in the public eye more? I use to help the Republicans with their " get out the vote" campaign in California. I have not heard anything like that for Gary Johnson.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by KnowledgeisaBurden 2 years, 12 months ago
                      An observation; the 'rulers' are using the blatent demoncrap communists as a tool against a third party ever running. The fear of either to get 'elected' is greater than the validity of a third parties chance of breaking up the repulicans. A vote against the repulicans 'is' a vote for the demoncraps and see what that is! Even tho' both parties are being controlled by the same rulers, Cruz with his involvement with the CFR and NAFTA is evidence of this. Gingrich stated recently that the gop does not like Trump because he does not belong to any secret society or club which makes him uncontrolable, Newt belongs to CFR and bohiemium grove, many old pic's of him there
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
                      I voted for John Anderson, Ross Perot, and Harry Browne. So, I've done my share of not voting for the GOP. I even cast my first presidential vote for George McGovern, but that was because I didn't like Nixon and I knew McGovern didn't have a chance to actually win.

                      With the exception of Perot, these votes were in situations where the result was obvious. In Perot's case, I helped elect Bill Clinton and I regret that.

                      Your assumption is that since voting for the GOP didn't achieve your goal, voting for someone else would have. I don't think Al Gore would have made a better president in 2000, or John Kerry in 2004. I still think Ross Perot would have made a better president in 1992, but he didn't want to be President, he wanted to stop George Bush. It's only an error if making a different decision in your vote would have improved the outcome.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 3 years ago
                        Congrats on your past votes against statist candidates.
                        I think that voting for a candidate of a party that consistently acts against the promises made publicly to voters, and against the interests of the people they represent, and against the values of individual liberty and free markets is a wasted vote.
                        It should be obvious that excludes statists like Gore and Kerry (as well as both Bushes, Dole, and McCain.)
                        As for Perot, it is impossible to know what he wanted. I think he compromised after his family was threatened, but we don't have the data to know for certain.
                        I am baffled at your currently considering a statist candidate given your history.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 3 years ago
      You got it !!!! I have had enough of this from our freeloading muslim black socialist president and his cronies. Time for REAL change.

      Trump at least has done something with his life, as opposed to the rest of the politicians who have done nothing but steal and spend our money.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 3 years ago
        Again you fail to include Gary Johnson who has accomplished a great deal outside politics creating a successful business and not looting in the process. Trump only looks better when compared to other statists and looters.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 3 years ago
          I actually think Gary Johnson would make a good president. I just dont think he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected IN THIS UPCOMING ELECTION.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lwr32 2 years, 10 months ago
            I think Gary Johnson would have a chance if he'd get out there and campaign with the big guys (and gal). I believe there are quite a lot of like minded people that could get him elected. They are just quiet and believe they can't effect change. On the other hand, I could be speaking out of my bottom end. Just my thoughts.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 2 years, 10 months ago
              I don't really know where the money goes in these campaigns, but sanders and hildebeast each spent 200 million+-. Trump spent about $5o million. Jen bush about $100 million. Gary Johnson might get $10m from Koch brothers For Gary Johnson to actually win, it would take more than half of the voters, and I think it will take much more education of the voters to appreciate freedom before he could get the votes. Unfortunately
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 11
    Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
    Anyone who actually knows about business knows that if you start a lot of businesses, a bunch of them will fail. According to the linked study, the average lifespan of a new business is 10 years.

    So, starting many businesses and failing at a bunch of them does not mean you are a bad businessman. In fact I wish politicians would realize when their programs fail and close them down instead of adding more money.

    http://www.businessadministrationinfo...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years ago
      And maybe Donnie shouldn't pretend he is a good businessman, since his track record is so mediocre.
      i don't want a president who throws a lot of my money against a wall indiscriminately just to see what sticks. Especially since, as you noted, federal programs that fail are continued forever with larger and larger budgets.
      Its clear from the results that there is not much wisdom in Donnie's brilliant operating procedure.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Witt84z 3 years ago
        I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. Thomas Edison.

        “Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.” - Robert F. Kennedy

        I am sure you know there are many more. How would you reconcile your comment above to the fact that to be a successful person one must accept there will be failures along the way?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Sp_cebux 3 years ago
          The premise that one must necessarily fail before being able to succeed .. or that failure breeds success.. is extraordinarily weak.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
            Obviously not true but his FEC financial disclosure indicates 515 entities. If you have that many things you are doing, you are pretty much guaranteed to have a number of clunkers in the mix.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 3 years ago
              It is not an advantage to have a president who will attempt hundreds of unconstitutional things without considering the consequences because he has the power and a blank check.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
                If he does, I certainly will agree with you. My hope is that unlike Obama, his orientation is toward making deals with congress to get what he wants. He's had to make deals with various agencies to build all the things he's built -- he knows how.

                And my concern with Cruz is that he does not. He is often standing for principle -- alone. It's a sad thing because I like the principles he espouses. But I don't see any sign that he can actually get anything done without signing executive orders -- and we've had enough of that. While you may think Trump is the one who wants his way, it's Cruz who points with pride to the fact that he is steadfast in his position and doesn't make deals. Politics is about deals.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by adamjw2 2 years, 12 months ago
                  I disagree with this quite vehemently. When an official gets elected, he is there to represent the principles of those who gave him their vote. Or at least, to represent the principles he stated he held while running. Therefore, before anything else, his job MUST be to stand firm for those principles, before any deal making. If a deal violates those principles, there can be no deal, if he is staying true to the values he stated.The problem for over a century has been too many deals, allowing for too many new laws, regulations, and growth of government. What we need is someone who recognizes that the problem is government itself, not the right people in office. I don't sense that understanding from Trump. He seems to be saying that he will bring the right people to fix the problem.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 years, 12 months ago
                    Lets imagine a thought experiment. Imagine the absurd situation that the Federal Government owned 85.4% of the state of Nevada. We believe as a matter of principle that this is absurd and that, at most the government should only own the ground related to performing legitimate government functions.

                    Now in this situation would an agreement to sell or otherwise distribute 10% of the Government held land to private individuals be acceptable or should we stand on principles and not make that deal -- insisting on all or nothing.

                    And get nothing but be firm on our stand. The left is always willing to take less than it wants, but it keeps coming back over and over.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by adamjw2 2 years, 12 months ago
                      To address your specific example above, making a deal with the government to give 10% of the land back to the people would not violate the original principle, as this deal is accomplishing what the principle stood for. The original deal which first allowed the land to be owned by the government was the one that violated the principle. What must also be considered, however, is what we are giving in return for the 10%. This is often where principles get sacrificed.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 years, 12 months ago
                        What you are giving is an implicit acceptance of the unethical Federal ownership of the remainder of the land. There could be other things too, but we are making up a thought experiment.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by adamjw2 2 years, 12 months ago
                      It doesn't matter the scenario, if the deal violates your principles, there can be nothing worth sacrificing those principles. The reason is because politicians can always provide an excuse why THIS deal must be made or else the sky will fall. I point to the Patriot Act as exhibit A. It was easy to say we HAVE to violate the 4th Amendment for security of the nation. What is hard is standing up for principles in that situation, that these rights should never be violated.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by johnpe1 3 years ago
                  this is a good argument, sir, IMHO. . and I notice that
                  it's been 33 hours since you made it ... with no attempts
                  at refutation. . good sense stands for something!!! -- j

                  p.s. I contend that Cruz would fare worse against Clinton
                  than DT, but that's just my estimate.
                  .
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 3 years ago
            I would say that people dont WANT to fail, but we all must learn on our own HOW to succeed. Its not taught in the public schools for sure. Some are smarter and quicker than others. Learning from failure and adapting does eventually breed success, however.

            One must define failure. If you fail in business because the economy in general changes (general recessions), new technology comes from out of the blue and makes your product or service obsolete, or other things like that- its not the same as just failing because of overspending, being lazy, etc.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 3 years ago
              I agree, term.
              Trump still hasn't learned enough from his failures to be trusted with the power of the presidency. He also shows a lack of ethics and a fondness for government looting and use of eminent domain.

              How about learning from the repeated error of voting in fear instead of voting based on principles.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 3 years ago
                I definitely fear what Hillary will do to the country. I feared what Obama was going to do, and he has done it. I look at Trump as a roadblock more than a champion of freedom. Hillary would make stupid and dangerous decisions, as Obama did.

                Voting for Cruz or Gary Johnson just wouldnt do anything positive this time around. Neither can overtake Hillary.

                Voting out of fear is not bad if fear is the correct response to what is happening.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 3 years ago
          Edison or Kennedy are not relevant since they are not candidates.
          Comments are about Trump who claims he will make America great again and touts his business acumen as a reason to support him. He conveniently omits his frequent failures.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ProfChuck 3 years ago
            As a scientist I realize that we learn far more from our failures than from our successes. But to do so we must admit the failure and its value as a teacher. To deny failure is to deny the value of experience.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
            What we are saying is that frequent failures are a part of business acumen. Recognizing failures is a big part of it as well. Politicians would not waste nearly as much of our money if they had the wisdom to do that.

            Sometimes you start a business that meets a market need and later that need goes away. Blockbuster Video was a big business, but technology moved the market away from them. That doesn't mean that it was a bad business to start, just one that had it's market niche evaporate..
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 3 years ago
              Exactly. Starting a business is difficult. You try and see what the customers want and try to fill the need. Customers change their minds, technology changes the options customers have, and oftentimes government regulations and interference (cronyism) sends business to competitors unfairly.

              Blockbuster could have pivoted into streaming before Netflix took over, but it didnt and paid the price.


              Edison could have pivoted into AC power instead of sticking to DC power, but didnt.

              The Wright brothers could have kept on inventing instead of relying on government patents, while competitors (Curtis) and WW2 made their patents worthless.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 3 years ago
              Note that Trump's errors were all immediate without even slight success. Blockbuster was a success for many years. There is no comparison, (unless you want to discuss the rumors that some Blockbusters were washing machines for drug profits.).
              Of course I wish government operated like a business... it would be so much smaller given the 95%+ failure rate of its stated objectives.
              Sure many businessmen have some failures. they aren't running for president so their failures are not germane. Trump's failures are from many years ago followed my a string of successes. They show he is not a canny businessman, but one who fails and then fails to learn from the failures.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 3 years ago
                We have many failures in government, in fact most of what government does fails miserably. They find deficiencies and then propose THEIR solutions, which generally go down in flames. Then they blame it on insufficient funds and if they get them, more failure ensues. Then the programs are hidden from view so we cant see how bad they are.

                If our politicians did things as well as Trump, there would be no need for Trump to clean it up.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
                Keep in mind that Trump was involved in many businesses over the years, these have been cherry-picked as his failures. No one is talking about all of his successes.

                I frankly find the idea of building major projects in New York City that are profitable as a very impressive resume. That's an incredibly complex environment to build in. I doubt seriously that any of the candidates could actually do that.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by jdg 3 years ago
                  Successfully navigating a deliberately and needlessly difficult regulatory system like NYC's doesn't make you a producer. It means you are probably one of those who made the system that way, to wall out your competitors. Trump doesn't even try to deny this; he glories in it.

                  If we must have a corrupt president I would much prefer Hillary, because her kind of corruption is less competent and easier to dismantle after she leaves.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years ago
                  So the criteria for being President is a failure rate in business? What's Obama's excuse? He's only failed as a politician and a .......... politician
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
                    No, but a success rate would be good. It is not necessary to always be successful, just mostly and overall grow your assets. Trump meets that -- and most of his projects involve working with various governmental agencies that he can't simply dictate to. One of the problems with businessmen in politics is they expect people to follow their decisions and not have to talk them into it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 3 years ago
          Hopefully, we learn QUICKLY from failure !! Even Edison failed with DC power, but wasnt able to just pivot and adopt AC power. He had the chance with Tesla as an employee. Pivoting and reinventing your business when you face failure is very important, and Trump has done that. I give him credit for it too.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -3
        Posted by term2 3 years ago
        You are just a Trump hater. You would complain about him no matter what he did or said.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 3 years ago
          My comments are based on reality.
          I am also a global warming "denier", on the same basis.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 3 years ago
            ACtually, there is global warming/cooling that goes on all the time through history. From an engineering point of view, few thermodynamic systems like the earth would stay perfectly stable on their own- there would be competing forces to warm and cool resulting in oscillations.

            As to whether human activity really makes that much difference, I really dont know, but tend to think that other forces are much larger.

            I would think your comments on Trump were based on reality if you also did the same analysis on Hillary or Sanders. Trump is a LOT better than either of them, and has the only chance I see of beating Hillary in November.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
              Idolatry for Trump does not give him the only chance of beating Hillary. The polls show that he loses to Hillary and the other candidates beat her.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 3 years ago
      YES. The key to a good buinessperson is that they get back up and keep trying. We dont find out HOW to start and run businesses in the government indoctrination centers (public schools). We have to learn that as we go- just the way it is.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 3 years ago
    Without investigating every "failure" it is difficult to come to a conclusion. However, of the few very rich businesspeople I know, most keep trying new ventures over and over. Some succeed. Some succeed big. Some fail. Some fail big. In many cases it is as natural to them to do this as breathing.

    Those I am referring to are multi-millionaires, not billionaires. I often wonder how they would do if they had started with millions from Dad as Mr. T. did.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  BeenThere 3 years ago
      He didn't start with millions from Dad.......I believe it was $1mil (and possibly a loan)..........many have started with $1 mil (or more) and not done well or even lost it all.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 3 years ago
        The amount has been different depending who reports it as well as whether or not he repaid it. It doesn't really matter since he was given a start from his wealthy family. Some very rich folks that I know started with next to nothing. And it's true that there are people who were given a million and worked it into a shoestring.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
    The real issue with "The Donald" is whether or not people are voting on substance or just talk. I'd love to see a list of all the successful business ventures he's gone into to present a complete comparison, but that's an awfully long list of failures that weren't even good ideas in the first place.

    Most of the things I saw on that list were simply Trump's attempts to get others to buy into his ego. It's even less excusable from a person with a Wharton MBA who should be able to do risk analysis, business projections, and market analysis.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 3 years ago
      So lets see what Cruz, Rubio, or the other politicians have done. NOTHING. They have no clue how to run businesses. I would give Kasich a little more credit than the others, but he has no presidential appeal unfortunately.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
        The premise of your statement is that running government is like running a business. That is at best only partially true. The other fundamentally unsound premise is that business success automatically transfers into government success. You may choose to try to defend such a premise at your peril. The third assertion you make is that the politicians have done nothing. This is logically absurd and hyperbole.

        I'm not going to go into Rubio. He dropped out of contention. What we do know is that he was a proponent of amnesty for illegals - a proposition many (including myself) find issue with. I'm not going to go into Kasich either. His only path to the nomination this year is one of usurpation via brokered convention. That he is staying in the contest tells me that he is willing to ignore the will of the people in order to gain power.

        Regarding Cruz, I see someone who actually has principles and someone who has bucked his own party to further them. Now you may disagree with those principles, but an argument that he has done "nothing" falls particularly flat. If you have a specific issue to discuss, go there rather than resorting to extreme generalities.

        What really lies at the heart of government is philosophy, i.e. what set of governing beliefs is one going to follow. What I see from Trump is someone with a history of overt narcissism. What troubles me about Trump is his penchant for rhetoric. It inflames the passions, but does nothing to educate the voter. It is precisely the same tactic that Obama used to become President. I don't want a President who is inflammatory, nor do I want a narcissist in the Oval Office. I want someone who understands the Constitution of the United States and will act within its original intent and defend its original intent. Let's take a look at how Donald Trump scores vs Ted Cruz on the more salient points:

        1. First Amendment. Donald Trump has come out openly in favor of prosecuting or suing those who disparage him. Ted Cruz is willing to engage them in honest debate. Donald Trump freely uses his First Amendment rights to call his opponents liars, to degrade women, and to issue tirades. Ted Cruz acts thoughtfully. He has also defended the First Amendment - successfully - before the Supreme Court. Ted Cruz +2, Donald Trump -1
        2. Second Amendment. Donald Trump in his younger days was a proponent of the Brady Bill. His "Lifetime Membership" to the NRA was only purchased when he decided to run for President - his NRA membership doesn't actually go back more than two years. Ted Cruz defended the Second Amendment's original interpretation before the Supreme Court of the United States - and won. +2 to Ted Cruz, 0 for Donald Trump.
        3. Fourth Amendment (FBI vs Apple case). Both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz came out in favor of the FBI. -1 to Ted Cruz, -1 for Donald Trump
        4a. 9th and Tenth Amendments (Healthcare). Donald Trump opposes "Obamacare" but still favors government-sponsored healthcare. -1 for Donald Trump. Ted Cruz favors repealing Obamacare in its entirety and converting Medicare to State-run block grants - and he proposed legislation to do it. +1 for Ted Cruz
        4b. Ted Cruz campaigned - and won - in Iowa on a pledge to eliminate energy subsidies and level the playing field for business (+1). Donald Trump has used eminent domain and political contributions to further his businesses at the expense of others. (-1)
        5. Fourteenth Amendment (immigration). Both have been outspoken about the need for illegals to return home and come back to the United States through proper channels. Ted Cruz actually inserted a "poison pill" into legislation that would have legalized illegal immigrants. +2 to Ted Cruz, +1 for Donald Trump.
        6. Sixteenth Amendment (income taxes). Donald Trump supports lowering taxes on businesses (+1) but at the same time wants to force them to repatriate (and tax) their foreign holdings (-1). Ted Cruz wants to lower both personal income taxes and corporate taxes (+1) but at the same time has forwarded a proposal to institute a VAT tax (-1).
        7. 19th Amendment (women). Trump has repeatedly denigrated women in general (-1). Cruz' campaign spokesperson is a well-spoken and thoughtful woman (+1).
        8. Presidential powers. Trump has said that he would use Executive Actions to further his agenda. Cruz has said that he will only use Executive Actions to rescind prior Executive Actions. Cruz +1, Trump -1.

        I'm willing to look at any other points, but so far I'm tallying up the scores and this is how it stands: Donald Trump -5, Ted Cruz +9.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 3 years ago
          The real scorecard is Ted Cruz +9, Donald Trump -5, Hillary Clinton -1000000. (Feel free to tack more zeros on the right if you like.) :-)

          So the question is, who is more likely to defeat Hillary? Answer: Trump has demonstrated in the primaries that he is better able to reach out beyond the Republican base, while maintaining significant support among Evangelicals, who are supposedly Cruz’s core constituency. Thus, if the goal is to prevent Hillary from reaching the White House, Trump is the better candidate for the job.

          (Full disclosure: I plan to vote for Gary Johnson. This post relates to tactical voting only.)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
            Current polling, unfortunately, doesn't support the notion that in a Trump v Hillary contest that Trump prevails. Cruz (and Rubio prior to his exit) both win.

            If you believe the polls.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 3 years ago
              Re: The Polls
              Reagan trailed Carter by 15 points in March 1980. He beat Carter by 10 points that November.
              http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
                Oh, I don't suggest that the polls are the end-all and be-all, I just point out that those who believe that Trump can beat Hillary have only their own hope to back them up. Things are likely to change between now and November, I agree.

                There are two tests left for the eventual nominee. One is the one-on-one debates. Romney destroyed Obama in the first debate and gained an instant five percentage point lead. Then he inexplicably disappeared in the second and third debates and ended up losing the election. The Republican nominee can't afford a misstep in the debates. Unfortunately for "The Donald", he doesn't debate well. He doesn't have the off-the-cuff one-liners like Rubio or the eidetic memory of Cruz and his temperament works more against him than for him. If Trump is to beat Hillary in a face-to-face matchup, he's going to need some quality coaching to do it because as the number of participants in the debates have dwindled, so has Trump's ability to bluster his way through. Skipping the next debate is a huge experiential mistake IMO. He isn't going to get that luxury in the Generals and quite frankly makes him look like a three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum.

                The second is going to be name recognition and association. For all Hillary's negative associations, she's outdone by "The Donald". And he already has 100% name recognition, which means that people have already made their initial impressions of him and he is going to be hard-pressed to change their minds about him. It's going to take a Herculean effort in the Press (which are unreservedly anti-Republican) to alter peoples' perceptions. I don't think it's going to happen.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 3 years ago
                  Maybe the GOP and dems will have some unexpected competition in the debate.
                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...
                  The article points out that the inclusion of Perot in debates by the League of Women Voters was the reason the GOP and Dems created the arbitary rule that keeps out any competition to the statist party.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
                    I would love to see more parties than just the two. Competition is good for business and I think it is good for politics.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
                      Multiple parties, especially without a parliamentary system of alliances, leads to unintended counter-intuitive results from the voting. Trump leading the primary voting without a majority by splitting the opposition is an example.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
                        Perhaps, but I think you'd agree with me that the current system is only representing at best 1/2 of the population. And that's all they need to retain power.

                        Your point on Trump IMO is an example of this. It isn't the social conservatives Trump is winning. In closed primaries restricted to just registered Republicans, Trump is losing. It is only in the open-primary states that Trump wins. Who does Trump appeal to? Those who were once called Blue Dog Democrats who have been abandoned by the Democrats as they have shifted further left/Progressive. There aren't any more "moderate" Democrats - those who worked with Reagan. The Democratic Party doesn't fund the re-election campaigns of those representatives who were once much more moderate - especially on fiscal issues.

                        Is Trump splitting the vote? I think there is a reasonable argument for that. The question is splitting it amongst whom? Since the Progressive/Democratic Party only represents about 25%-30% of the Nation, that leads another 70% which (foolishly) the Republicans assume they can appeal to. I believe that this is one of the reasons why they have been such a disaster - they haven't settled on a demographic to target so they try to appeal to everyone and unsurprisingly end up offending everyone.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  Flootus5 3 years ago
          Good analysis, but a question. On point 5 what is the poison pill that Cruz inserted into legislation? Was it that legislation that would have legalized illegal immigrants or was it the poison pill added? I suspect the former as Cruz gets a +1.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
            Cruz was the one that inserted a poison pill into the bill being forwarded by Rubio and the Gang of Eight to grant amnesty to illegals. It came up in the debate just before Florida (in passing) and the one before that as well.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
          I'd give Trump a little more on the second amendment because he has a concealed carry permit.

          I actually like Cruz's positions better than Trump's but I don't see Cruz being able to execute. He's a first term senator who has not particularly gotten along with anyone. An obviously brilliant lawyer and, frankly, if he winds up the guy I'll be oh so much happier than I was going to be with Bush.

          But I think Trump may be able to actually implement and actually deal with some of the waste. Any attempt to scale back the EPA or other departments will result in a blistering attack by entrenched forces. The ability to weather that attack is essential to the process.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
            The question I have with Trump is that all we have are unknowns. He talks big and there are some of his proposals which I identify with (build the wall, cut corporate taxes among them) but it is still up in the air as to the execution. I'd love to see the next President gut the Executive Branch. I just question which will win out: the desire for power or the rhetoric. I'm skeptical that "The Donald" will follow through on a course of action that curtails his own power and similarly wary of the tactics he would use to accomplish that goal. If he were to work with Congress to pass a law eliminating the positions which were created by Congress, I'd be in complete support. If he does it via Executive Order, is he any better than our current President?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
              To me, the underlying thing is not what he has said on the campaign trail, it's the thirty years of successful (with a few failures) business. The type of large projects that he has been able to get built demonstrate executive accomplishment -- and it is an executive position after all.

              Plus in his books and the 14 years of "the Apprentice" a fair amount of his philosophy has come out.

              To a significant degree I agree with you, I am more confident in Cruz's positions, I'm more confident in Trump's ability to execute. And, I do have a weakness for the businessman outsider -- I supported Perot.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
                I supported Perot as well - and mainly because of his business acumen.

                In a couple of weeks, we'll get to see if Cruz can bridge the gap. Arizona in particular looks to be the make-or-break contest as it is a winner-take-all contest (and they have been willing to re-elect John McCain time after time). If Trump wins Arizona, it will be very tough for him not to get to the required delegate count necessary to avoid the convention. Whatever happens, I do not support anyone other than Cruz or Trump getting the nomination at this point.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 3 years ago
            "give Trump a little more on the second amendment because he has a concealed carry permit."
            This is typical of Trump and other elite statists. He supports gun ownership for himself, but has not been supportive of the 2nd amendment which supports the right to armed self defense for everyone..
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by philosophercat 3 years ago
          Cruz is an evangelical Christian and as such cannot integrate morals and the political goal of individual rights. . Science is his enemy as is the concept of individual sovereignty as human minds are subordinate to Gods will.
          If he announced he was a Deist then all would be fine but he wants god in our lives and laws. Never. Any one but a pro lifer.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
            Trump has also claimed to be Christian. Are you going to disqualify him as well?

            I'm looking at the body of work, as a President may influence a panoply of issues. If you choose to make it about a particular issue in an all-or-nothing decision, that's up to you.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
              Every president has claimed to be Christian. The political issue is whether they keep it as a private matter and pay lip service to it, or use it as motivation to impose public policy violating people's rights.

              Trump is in some ways as overt as Cruz the way he waves a Bible over his head pandering to evangelicals, even when he can't pronounce Biblical names. But no one believes the antics. When Trump claimed to have his childhood Bible with him, waving it around and pronouncing it his favorite book, many didn't believe it, suspecting that he had brought it out for the first time since his childhood.

              The difference between Cruz and Trump in this matter is that Cruz has presented himself as a religious zealot who wants to impose religion in some ways as policy (aside from all his other, better principles), and Trump could do the same thing as part of his Pragmatist deal-making whether he believes it or not. There is a risk, in that sense, that Trump could wind up being just as bad or worse, just as there is a risk that in other realms he could be as bad as Hillary.

              But it's important to remember that Cruz does have principles on constitutional limited government that Trump does not, and the likelihood of imposing evangelical policies in a seriously damaging way in the foreseeable future is generally much less than anyone imposing the more collectivist statist ideas (including destructive pandering to islam) that has already been the general trend and threatens to become worse. In that, Cruz is the less dangerous, both because of and in spite of his ideas in comparison to both Trump and Hillary.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by philosophercat 3 years ago
              Islam, Vedantics, and Christians except Deists hold to the truth of ancient texts against the findings of science because they must defend their texts against the empirical knowledge of science which contradicts every fundamental statement. There is no god, Alla and veda is not universal consciousness. We atheists are at least able to start thinking with the real world which is where we want real results. Reagan was the last great man in politics because he understood government is separate from morality...it is about rights and their protection. Cruz and other young earth creationists are really scary. You can cut a deal with Trump.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 3 years ago
                "You can cut a deal with Trump."
                Only if it benefits Trump's personal goals of power and wealth. He can't be trusted with the power of the presidency.
                (Yes, the best solution is to cut that power by 99.9%. Then Trump or Hillary or Cruz or fill-in-the-blank-statist could splash in the DC bathtub but wouldn't affect anything of consequence.)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
                  You can't "cut a deal" with Trump. He cuts deals at your expense, selling you out. "Deals" for anything is his Pragmatist replacement of the rights of the individual. He doesn't have principles and doesn't mention them. The solution to every problem, for him, is not to start by protecting the rights of the individual, but make a "deal" in the name of whatever problem he is demagoging at the moment in pandering for votes.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -2
          Posted by term2 3 years ago
          The failures of government when it tries to run businesses (which is mostly what it wants to do now- Obamacare, the many alphabeet agencies like FAA, TSA, etc, etc. Government should stay OUT of running businesses completely. It cant even run a DMV in Nevada or California for example. Politicians get the government into businesses to increase their power, and they have the wrong mindset to be successful.
          I would challenge you to find a government run business that is successful in terms of being efficient. Its going to be a very small number. Politicians are in government for power basically in my experience. They are in it for the lofty reasons they tell us. Could there be an exception or two- probably- but not a lot.

          Except for the religiosity, I think Cruz has "principles" which I would basically agree with. However, "principles" such as those are really unpopular and are considered boring these days (unfortunately). That makes him unable to win against hillary, who offers the socialism that is popular today.

          I appreciate your desire to have someone as president who has constitutional principles, I really do. But, in this culture and at this time, John Galt would not run nor would come anywhere close to winning. We are riding on the downhill part of the intellectual roller coaster in a country which is run by the 50.1% mob,
          On #1- I dont think any of the repub candidates would make any difference at this point going fwd 4 yrs.
          #2- Both candidates are for the second amendment now and going fwd.
          #3- BOTH get negative ratings for their views on Apple, Snowden, and Manning
          #4- They both want Obamacare OUT, but they both want something else IN that involves government. I doubt that Obamacare can be dismantled now anyway- its changed too many things and would be disruptive.
          #4b- Eminent domain has been passed on by the SCOTUS and not much will change on that in the next 4 yrs no matter who is in there.
          #5- There are a lot of executive actions that must be removed too. I am not sure either one of them would be more successful than the other on this point. Theres talk, and then theres action.
          #6- I like the getting rid of the IRS, but as a business person I do NOT like a VAT (very complicated). So I give both of them some + and -. Doubt getting rid of IRS would pass congress, and if a VAT passed there would just be another bureaucracy to administer it. I like Trump;s lowering of corporate taxes.
          #7- I think Trump has a right to not like some women, just as he doesnt like some men. But, he has LOTS of very good women working for him as well as men. He does know how to pick em.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
            Stop minimizing the impact of eminent domain seizing private property. The president controls the executive branch and its policy on taking land. The agencies trample private property rights under existing sweeping authority to the degree the president wants and allows it. A president like Trump who thinks "eminent domain is wonderful" is much worse.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by conscious1978 3 years ago
              Indeed. He has already shown no restraint in publicly smearing private companies and individuals. A 'President Trump' overtly damaging private enterprise and private citizens is just another disgusting gang leader exercising the "democratic" destruction of individual rights.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -2
              Posted by term2 3 years ago
              Eminent domain is not good i agree. But it is not as big an issue as obamacare, $15/hr minimum wages, explosions in taxes and NSA incursions into privacy
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
                For the people who are threatened with it is a "big issue". It means everything. You keep telling us "not much will change on that in the next 4 yrs no matter who is in there". It isn't true. How many victims does it take before you start to care? How many "wonderful" anti-individual rights pronouncement does a Pragmatist wheeler-dealer like Trump have to make before you care about that?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • -4
                  Posted by term2 3 years ago
                  The supreme court recently ruled in favor of eminent domain. That freedom has already been lost along with a lot of others why do you think trump would be worse than Hillary or Sanders? It's ? Obviously Hillary or Sanders would be a lot worse. If she is elected, you will c as she raises taxes
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 years, 11 months ago
                    The power of eminent domain has become legal in broader circumstances over time. So have regulatory powers taking private property rights through restrictions while leaving the owner with the deed and the tax bill. Policies of exploiting these powers more intensively depend on who is president. It matters a lot.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 2 years, 11 months ago
                      I do think that in this election, there are more important issues that face us for the next 4 years. Things like the deficit spending, money printing by the fed, and the horrible takeover of medical care by Obama and potentially Hillary. Not to mention the asset seizures as a part of the war on drugs. Not to minimize eminent domain abuses, but we are in a lifeboat situation in our country and we have to plug the largest leaks in the boat first.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
            I never argued that government should be in business. I agree with you that it shouldn't. However, that only undermines the claim that a good businessman is going to be able to translate that success into politics and government.

            As to which candidate will win the general election, polls right now have Donald Trump losing by more than five points to Hillary Clinton - despite her email scandals and general untrustworthiness. Cruz wins. So I'm not seeing the basis for the argument you make that Donald wins vs Hillary other than wishful thinking.

            "We are riding on the downhill part of the intellectual roller coaster in a country which is run by the 50.1% mob"

            An accurate observation which is perhaps the scariest part.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
              It's not an intellectual roller coaster, the intellectual trend in politics has been all down. The political policies have been zig-zag, with reactions against excesses, but a net downward trend.

              The country isn't run by 50.1% mob, it's run by a political elite in the name of the mob, guided in accordance with pressure group warfare, in essence, as Ayn Rand put it, "fascism with communist slogans".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 3 years ago
              I wonder about the polls. We wont know for awhile, if ever. I think there are the results of the polls, and then there are the results of the voting in the quiet of the voting booth where political correctness fades away. People are very disgusted and angry with the power grabs, cronyism, and back room deals of our government, and the quiet of the voting booth is the place to get even, hopefully.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
                Oh, I agree. I just hope that the outrage leads to better descision-making - not more of the mob mentality which threatens the greatest Republic this world has ever known.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
                  Outrage doesn't lead to better decision making, better political ideas based on the principle of the rights of the individual is required for that. The danger is that a lot of people are increasingly outraged over the state of the country and its downward trend but don't know what is right.

                  Knowing what one is against doesn't tell anyone what to be for. Electing a strong-arm man on a white horse only makes the downward trend worse, leading to more desperation, more acceptance of the deprivations and injustices, and more radically statist reactions sacrificing individuals to pressure group warfare and more overt collectivism.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -3
          Posted by Esceptico 3 years ago
          The only principle Cruz has is to get what he wants and the means do not matter --- he does not care if he lies and cheats. As to this principle, he is principled.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
            Even if that were true, how is "The Donald" an exemplar of honesty?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by philosophercat 3 years ago
              No one holds Trump to any standard except he is "not Hillary" after that who cares get a Republican Congress to control Trump and things will come out pretty well. Trump is what Rand hated most an unprincipled pragmatist whim worshiper whose only whim is himself. But he is better than Hillary who is the same but a leftist with a socialist party.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
                Ayn Rand despised pragmatist businessmen but did not regard them as more threatening than ideological power seekers like communists and other overt collectivists.

                Trump is not "better" than Hillary, only more of a risk in comparison with the dead certainty of what Hillary is. But the choice in voting in a primary is between the candidates in their own party, not an evasive comparison with a Democrat progressive as if the rest of the candidates did not exist.

                Republican Congresses do not control presidents, especially when showing deference to a president of their own party. Congress also does not control the executive branch of the government operating in accordance with existing vague laws, which is where most of the activity of government rule is. Regardless of what new laws are passed, it matters a lot who is president running the actual operations of government.

                There is also no certainty that the Republicans will retain control of the House and the Senate at all, especially with a backlash against a presidential candidate with the record breaking negative polling of Trump.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Esceptico 3 years ago
              That is not the issue and the fallacy of the false alternative. The Trump appeal is that he is the only non-establishment candidate and we the people ar disgusted with the establishment.

              Galt is not running, and if he were, I would bet he would have more than a few detractors here at the Gulch.

              Will a Trump-led Republican Party end up being worse? That’s certainly possible, but it would be pretty hard to accomplish such a feat given that the current party is guided by a collection of some of the biggest fools and frauds on the planet. In any event, life is full of risks, so why not give it a try before it’s too late? And keep in mind that right now millions of people are in a risk-taking mood.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
                Trump is not the only non-establishment candidate, and while is not inside the political power structure he is intellectually establishment in his Pragmatist opposition to principles and his failure to acknowledge the rights of the individual. A strong-arm man on the white horse with dictatorial aspirations is not an answer to the political establishment.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Esceptico 3 years ago
                  Under current circumstances, what is your suggestion as which of the candidates is best?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 years, 11 months ago
                    If it turns out to be Trump vs Clinton the question is whether the risks of Trump in all kinds of realms are as bad as the certainty of Clinton. The frightening prospect of having to vote for Trump to try to keep Clinton out is not expressible in turns of the "best" candidate.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
                Given that your assertion about Cruz is unsubstantiated speculation, I wouldn't be so quick to call foul. The insinuation in your statement was that because of your allegations against Cruz, Trump is the logical alternative. If he is guilty of the same infidelity you charge in Cruz, he is no better an alternative. I am pointing out not only that you must substantiate your position, but that you must go further and give evidence Trump is not the same.

                "The Trump appeal is that he is the only non-establishment candidate and we the people ar disgusted with the establishment."

                I agree with you that the voting public is disgusted with the political establishment. Where I suspect we differ is in the inclusion of Cruz as a member of the Establishment. As a first-term politician who has repeatedly filibustered even his own party's legislation, I don't know of too many people who consider Cruz an "establishment" Republican. That he is one of the most hated in Washington, D.C. (according to his polling in the Presidential Primaries in D.C.) tells me he is just as much an outsider as Trump, and I would argue that his performance in the Primaries to this point is more evidence of that.

                What I am concerned about is a repeat of a mob mentality who is so sick of the political establishment that they are willing to vote anyone into power based on fiery rhetoric without substance. If we do not learn from the past, my fear is that we are doomed to repeat it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • -3
                  Posted by Esceptico 3 years ago
                  The best I can say is you have not done your homework regarding Cruz. His entire family has been in politics from parents to siblings, along with his crapitalist relative Neil Cruz who took millions. The history you would have us repeat is to put yet another establishment person as president. The panic of the GOP, Dems and media are simply they want to keep things as they are.

                  Jeaninne Pirro did a good 6 minute video on this.
                  http://video.foxnews.com/v/4809296522...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
                    If that is supposed to be a criticism of Cruz, I missed it. She does an admirable job of railing on the Republican establishment in exaggerated outrage, but the only mention of Cruz in all six minutes was that he needed 80% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination. The rest was the same tired line that it's an eventuality that Trump will win the nomination. I agree with her that the electorate is tired of the establishment games, but if that's the case, why is Cruz also doing well in the polls - and getting better as more candidates drop out?

                    Guilt-by-association is a non-starter and you know it. -1 I don't engage in character assassination and I expect better from those on this forum. If you have specific criticisms of Ted Cruz, bring them up and let's discuss them as I have done, but I'm not interested in opinion or hearsay, nor am I interested in editorials like this one.

                    The last point I would bring up is that Cruz has been the only candidate other than Trump to call into question the legitimacy of a brokered convention. If he was part of the Establishment with so much to gain from a brokered convention, why would he openly defy his own Party in such a manner when Kasich has admitted that a brokered convention is his only hope?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
                      Yes but they don't define "brokered convention". Under the rules, if no one has over 50% of the delegates, which is highly possible this year, the delegates are released from their obligation to support the candidate they represent and they keep voting, in what is called a contested or open convention, and is one meaning of "brokered convention", until someone gets a majority. Under the rules there is no choice about this. It isn't something that is imposed by insiders.

                      If after several rounds it becomes apparent that those in the lead are not going to make it, the deal-making among delegates increases, opening up the whole process to additional candidates (like a Romney). Otherwise the only influence is insider rule changes. A broker is an intermediary in a deal. Kasich and party insiders yearn for a coup, not a convention of any kind. None of them are defining what they mean by "brokered convention".
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
                        The deal making period begins on June 8, right after the final primaries. If Trump is short of the majority, he may well go looking for a VP with votes in their pocket.

                        And don't kid yourself none of these guys would turn him down, Cruz and Rubio are first term Senators -- and Rubio is about to be unemployed. Kasich won't have a better chance next time unless he ups his profile by being VP.

                        Win or lose, the VP is the presumptive first seed in the next election. It didn't work this way in the Democratic side because the Clinton cartel scared Biden away.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
                          That does not define what they mean when they say they want a brokered convention.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
                            That's true, but that is because they want to control things. If Trump is a hundred delegates or so short and makes a deal with one of the others, particularly Cruz to run as a ticket. They can announce that ahead of time.

                            I think the first ballot still goes according to the primaries and they would have to wait for the second ballot, but there would then be a strong argument for ratifying the team that won the majority of the delegates.

                            It could still go against them but it would be much less likely than if they showed up and let people start rolling dice.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by 3 years ago
                              I doubt Cruz would be satisfied with VP under Trump... not that I have a crystal ball or have any great insight into Cruz' thinking;^)
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 years ago
                                If he's several hundred delegates behind Trump and can't get the majority by combining with Kasich or Rubio his odds don't look good -- the establishment doesn't like him much either. It might well be in his best interest to take VP to Trump (assuming it's offered) and be in a great position for a subsequent run. He's a young guy -- a freshman Senator.

                                He might not be satisifed, but you can't always get what you want.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • -4
                      Posted by Esceptico 3 years ago
                      The point was the establishment, of which Cruz is one. You argue Cruz is not part of the establishment. I disagree with you. He is part of the establishment, and perhaps the perception he is not part of the establishment is why he has some pull in the polls. I am listening to Trump on TV now at AIPAC.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
                        Cruz is not part of the establishment. He is a rare politician who has bucked the establishment from the inside, usually on the side of limited government. Dumping anyone with political experience as "establishment" regardless of what he has been doing and seeks to do is a terrible criterion.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 3 years ago
                          imo. many who oppose Cruz do so in fear of how his religious convictions will affect his actions. Is there evidence that Cruz will keep the constitution as a higher priority in his decisions than his religious convictions when there is a conflict? (I have no bias for or against Cruz, just seeking information.)
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
                            I would look at his past. Did his religious convictions further Evangelical Christianity when he won cases in the Supreme Court protecting the First and Second Amendments? Did those convictions further his religion when acting as Senator? From all I can see, they did not, but I won't pretend to know everything about the man. Personally, I think his religious ties are over-hyped - probably because for the first time in decades we finally have a Presidential candidate who has principles he has never backed away from to placate an electorate.

                            The real question in my mind for President of the United States is not his religion or non-religion anyway. My primary concern is how that person executes the Office of the President in accordance with the Constitutional powers vested in that Office. I look at the current candidates and there is only one I believe will do that: Cruz.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by 3 years ago
                              " I look at the current candidates and there is only one I believe will do that: Cruz."
                              I assume that you mean current GOP candidates.
                              Gary Johnson would fulfill that criterion, too.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
                                Perhaps, but I was limiting my options to those from the major two parties. Unfortunately, Johnson has no chance whatsoever of becoming President. That said, I would vote for him if Trump becomes the nominee.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by 3 years ago
                                  No chance as long as millions of good people ignore the principles they claim to revere. When the GOP leadership chooses its own controllled candidate the door will open for Johnson to attract the millions of disillusioned conservatives.
                                  The stage will be set for the miracle of 2016.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • -3
                          Posted by Esceptico 3 years ago
                          You might enjoy Stockman's take on this. What Stockman ignores is the blatant, on tv, lying and cheating done by Cruz. This, to me, disqualifies Cruz from consideration for the Supreme Court.
                          http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com...
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by 3 years ago
                            Governor Kasich a heartbeat away from being president? Terrible idea!
                            How about some links demonstrating the lying you keep referring to, please?
                            Serve up the dirt on Cruz!
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • -3
                              Posted by Esceptico 3 years ago
                              You don't need links, just watch tv. In Iowa, for example, what he did to Carson and his cheating voter violation trick show lying and cheating. When caught, his excuses were lame. Look at the photoshopped photo of Rubio. When caught, Cruz's excuses were lame. He has a win at all costs mentality. Nonetheless, Stockman (link above in this thread) thinks he would be a good supreme justice.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
                                Please. That one was debunked as soon as it was proposed. CNN reported that Carson's team in New Hampshire left Carson to join Cruz' team - and it was true. So Cruz' media relations team seized on it to send out last-minute messages to try to sway Carson's voters to Cruz. But it wasn't Cruz or Carson that called the entire voting populace of Iowa "stupid".

                                You're going to fixate on an obviously photoshopped picture as gross evidence of falsehood? Don't look back at the political debates between Jefferson and Madison and the political cartoons they ran against each other. You'd be horrified. They called each other all kinds of names that make even Donald Trumps insinuation about Megyn Kelly' menstruation look tame. Hint: Cherry picking usually is a rather poor method of persuading others to your viewpoint.

                                "He has a win at all costs mentality."

                                Again with the insinuation and editorials. Prove it. If Cruz were that way, why does he continue to denounce a brokered convention even though he is in second place with a slim chance to win? You sound just like Donald Trump when he accuses his opponents of being "nasty" people, "liars", and other such personal attacks - the hallmark of a "win-at-all-costs" mentality. Let's stick to specific issues and leave the name-calling to the politicians.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • -2
                                  Posted by Esceptico 3 years ago
                                  I watched the who "Carson quit" crap live. I read the actual tweets. I heard the Cruz response. I heard the Cruz BS explanation. Cruz is a liar, and a cheat not from anything you say is debunked, but from what I actually saw. So, sir, "Please" pay attention to what is actually happening.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -4
            Posted by term2 3 years ago
            He does seem a bit driven to get what he wants by whatever means. I just get that feeling. He also has this strange smile after he says something that people seem to like. Its as if his handlers told him to say that in order to get people to go for him, and he is just happy about the power he just got. This is just something that ran through my mind as I watched him speak. As if the handlers instructed "say point #1, 3, 5, and 10" to get positive response. This is totally an off the cuff emotional response to him, and I have no proof he actually thinks that way.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -3
              Posted by Esceptico 3 years ago
              Good observation, but not what I see as his attraction.

              As I see the situation, the Establishment (those in power in the GOP, Dems, and media) underestimated Trump and thought the election would be business as usual with one of their own elected. The GOP would rather have a Dem elected than Trump because they are all part of the Big Government Party.

              Cruz is one of their own, pure establishment through and through. So is his wife. Cruz has publicly shown he is a lying, cheating, underhanded, religious nut case who uses his bible to justify all his heinous behavior. Government and politics should be religion-free zones, but Cruz, like Bush, takes orders from his imaginary friend in the sky as well as his corporate “sponsors.”

              Certainly it is no secret the few whistle blowers who have exposed the corruption have been excommunicated, denigrated, or suffered terrible accidents. Even people outside the System (like Wikileak’s Assange) who risk all to expose the documents of our rulers are treated as criminals or traitors and not the heros they are.

              Donald Trump is now broadcasting these truths. In doing so he is encouraging free speech, a freedom which has been on a losing streak for decades. He has been an insider until now and now he exposes how the top politicians lust for power is funded by their corporate contributors in return for political favors, both above and below the table.

              Few of us favor corruption and this issue has aroused excitement among Americans across the whole political and religious spectrum, from the communist-socialists, the welfare-statists, Christians, Atheists, Constitutional libertarians and anarchists.

              This is the heart of the Trump Political Movement.

              I disagree with Trump about many major issues, but we I hope he can expose corruption from the inside and help bring it to an end. Trump is a negotiator, and many of the issues he touts are shown to achieve the exact opposite of what he wants, I hope he will change.

              At worst, it will be a new gang and it will take time for them to become entrenched.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 3 years ago
                Exactly, I agree with your points. I have been disgusted with all the back room deals that get pushed down my throat, and all the political correctness designed to shut me up. I like that Trump is freeing us all from political correctness. Even if I am wrong at a point in time, its better than I say what I think openly so we all know (including me) just where I stand. We should all be ourselves while we are alive.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 3 years ago
        As always, you are comparing Trump to other politicians and looters, and conveniently excluding the ethical, rational, principled choice of Gary Johnson, who has built a successful business without looter assistance.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
          Elections are a comparison by their very nature. I didn't include Johnson because the article focused on Trump and the conversation turned to a comparison between him and Cruz. We both know Johnson isn't competing for a spot on the Republican ticket. The other unfortunate reality is that Johnson has less of a chance at election than that of there being a brokered convention.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  CBJ 3 years ago
            Gary Johnson has a shot at collecting 3 or 4 percent of the vote this time around, and could affect the outcome. The votes will come from Republicans and Democrats who intensely dislike their party's nominee, and there will be many such voters regardless of who the major parties nominate.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 3 years ago
          I indicated I thought Gary Johnson would be a good choice, but has no chance of winning over Hillary this time around, no matter how many of us voted for him in the gulch.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago in reply to this comment.
    If you choose to look at everything through the glasses of a die-hard Trump supporter, you will certainly choose to focus on the smallest perceived slights in the opponent while ignoring such in your own candidate. That's your choice, just don't try to pass it off as being an objective observer to me.

    I drew a direct comparison of the political philosophies of Trump and Cruz and cited how each had acted, then based my decision about the relative strengths of each on the aggregate of those decision. You will note that I dinged Senator Cruz on several issues I could have chosen to ignore if I were a mere shill. Instead, I presented what I consider a fairly objective (though obviously not exhaustive) examination to which I didn't see any objection or claims that I had grossly misrepresented either candidate's position.

    If you feel I have omitted some relevant policy perspective, please present your view. If you want to get into the minutiae of things you don't like about Cruz, just be prepared to deal with Donald Trump's sexual insecurities (the "hands" issue), his awkward comment about how he'd have sex with his daughter, his comments objectivizing women ("a nice piece of ***"), the Trump "steak" lies, and a whole host of narcissistic behaviors. If those are the criteria upon which you vote for a President of the United States, I'll leave you to them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Esceptico 3 years ago
      I don't read your stuff to know what you included or excluded, but I do think you miss the point of Trump.

      As I see the situation, the Establishment (those in power in the GOP, Dems, and media) underestimated Trump and thought the election would be business as usual with one of their own elected. The GOP would rather have a Dem elected than Trump because they are all part of the Big Government Party.

      Cruz is one of their own, pure establishment through and through. So is his wife. Cruz has publicly shown he is a lying, cheating, underhanded, religious nut case who uses his bible to justify all his heinous behavior. Government and politics should be religion-free zones, but Cruz, like Bush, takes orders from his imaginary friend in the sky as well as his corporate “sponsors.”

      Certainly it is no secret the few whistle blowers who have exposed the corruption have been excommunicated, denigrated, or suffered terrible accidents. Even people outside the System (like Wikileak’s Assange) who risk all to expose the documents of our rulers are treated as criminals or traitors and not the heros they are.

      Donald Trump is now broadcasting these truths. In doing so he is encouraging free speech, a freedom which has been on a losing streak for decades. He has been an insider until now and now he exposes how the top politicians lust for power is funded by their corporate contributors in return for political favors, both above and below the table.

      Few of us favor corruption and this issue has aroused excitement among Americans across the whole political and religious spectrum, from the communist-socialists, the welfare-statists, Christians, Atheists, Constitutional libertarians and anarchists.

      This is the heart of the Trump Political Movement.

      I disagree with Trump about many major issues, but we I hope he can expose corruption from the inside and help bring it to an end. Trump is a negotiator, and many of the issues he touts are shown to achieve the exact opposite of what he wants, I hope he will change.

      At worst, it will be a new gang and it will take time for them to become entrenched.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 3 years ago
        Trump will expose corruption that assists him (e.g.,scapegoats for his own mistakes) and sweep all his favors under the rug, just as he has in his past. Trump is ethically unqualified to be president.
        A new gang ? What a crock of rubbish!
        That's the best reason to vote for Trump? He will take time to get his dictatorship in complete control?
        With reasons like that, the Trump 'movement' belongs over a toilet bowl.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
        Actually, I do understand your point more than you might think. I understand the anti-Establishment anger and I sympathize with it. The egregious error you make is to include Cruz with the Establishment when his history shows very much the contrary.

        "Government and politics should be religion-free zones"

        There is no such thing. You are arguing that there should be no morals in government at all. That's pure, unadulterated nonsense. Laws are codified morality. The real question to ask is which principles such-and-such a person as X candidate would operate under. That is precisely what I have been laying out the whole time. In very fact, the Constitution specifically dictates that there shall be no religious test as a qualification to hold office. That means that it is just as un-Constitutional to mandate atheists in government as to mandate Christians or anyone else.

        "but Cruz, like Bush, takes orders from his imaginary friend in the sky"

        Ah, so now we get down to your real beef with Cruz: the fact that he is a Christian. Why didn't you just come out and say so in the first place rather than dancing around the issue and pretending that it was anything else? Good grief, it wouldn't be as if you were the only one who wasn't a big fan of religion and Christians in particular. Just admit your bias and that your sole reason for supporting Trump is that he isn't as Christian as Cruz!

        That being said, if you want to make that the hill you die on, please excuse me from joining you. I wouldn't have any problem with voting for a Christian, Jew, Hindu, or any other "religious" person provided that their actions as President of the United States were in harmony with the Founders' expectations for that office. I want a Constitutionalist first and foremost. We've been lacking one for at least twenty years and I don't think we can afford even another four.

        "I disagree with Trump about many major issues, but we I hope he can expose corruption from the inside and help bring it to an end."

        I AGREE!!!! What I appreciate about Ted Cruz is that he hasn't just talked about it as a candidate, he's been calling it out on the floor of the Senate since he took office - much to the dismay of his own Party. I get that you don't like him, but I challenge you to read from several of his filibusters or floor speeches (several of which I linked above). Look at his record and the bills he has put forth. If he is a member of the Establishment, he has committed political suicide dozens of times over. I choose to simply conclude that he is like Rand Paul: an independent with an (R) next to his name.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -4
          Posted by Esceptico 3 years ago
          "Government and politics should be religion-free zones. " Morals are dependent upon religion.

          I figure we will have a Christian in the WH. My real beef with Cruz is he is liar and a cheat, and when caught he is not smart enough to talk his way out. Even Bill Clinton could do that.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
            So lying and cheating are okay as long as one can self-justify those actions? I don't understand that point of view of all.

            C'est la vie.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by Esceptico 3 years ago
              That is not what I intended to say, but I can see how my words could be so interpreted. I don't like liars or cheaters. Cruz justifies all with his bible, and to that I do object. Politics should be religion free.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
                I think I finally get what you are after, but please correct me if I am wrong. You assert that Cruz is a liar and a cheat because of his religion, is that correct? As an extension, therefore, everyone who is not atheist is automatically thrown into this same camp as a liar? Is that your position?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by xthinker88 3 years ago
    I bet the author of that article is not worth $4 billion. Trump evidently got a $1 million loan from his father in the late 60's. How many of you have returns of 400,000% since then. He inherited what, after estate taxes, would have been less than $50 million in the late 90's. Already a paltry sum for him. Even if it was all he owned at the time though he has earned an 8000% return on it. How many of you have done that well over the last 18 years?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 years ago
    Everyone wants the "perfect" candidate. Since none of us are perfect, a great deal of time is spent by many pointing out the imperfections of candidates they don't like. If I wanted a very good businessman with a solid grasp of economics, my first choice would be Steve Forbes, but he failed at his run for the Presidency.

    The reality is that the election game is a kind of beauty contest of a very twisted sort, hosted by the media. Qualifications are only part of the game, as the media quickly dismisses those candidates with a less than dynamic personality.

    Nice guys are painted as lackluster or simply uninteresting. Witness the demise of Huckabee, Carson, and Walker. Candidates with a message deemed "too intellectual" are painted as out of touch with the regular people, and there goes Rand Paul. Gary Johnson suffers the same fate.

    So we're left with the hucksters, preachers, and shysters. Ideologues like Cruz make for stimulating press exchanges, as it's easy to pose questions that make them look rigid and cruel. The media obsesses over Trump because it's so easy to paint him in a bad light, and they can't figure out why that doesn't destroy him like it would other politicians.

    Populism is a force that breaks all the rules, and Donald Trump has ridden that force farther than anyone imagined. Will it carry him to the White House? We'll have to wait and see.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
      The reality is that the election is such a circus because the country, especially Pragmatist politicians, are so anti-intellectual with no grasp of principles of limited government and rights of the individual. That explains the rest of it, including the inability to evaluate what the qualifications are and who might have them. It has nothing to do with "imperfection"; there are no standards.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 years ago
        Very few voters engage in deep analysis of a candidate's policies, particularly any unintended consequences. The result is that campaign statements are reduced to bumper sticker quality. It goes beyond anti-intellectual to anti-thinking, and you can see people's eyes glaze over when you challenge them to think about their choices.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 2 years, 10 months ago
      Not to mention he attracts the one group that should be practicing what they preach and find it easier to preach excuses and practice failure.

      Does that sound familiar?

      It's easy to spout a philosophy. Spouting isn't doing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 3 years ago
      I like your analysis. I think it fits whats going on. A perfect candidate would have to be determined by each of the voters. How could one of Romney's 47%-ers who want something for nothing ever agree the same candidate was perfect that was chosen by a free market objectivist voter??

      This is a 50.1% mob rule country now, unfortunately. We have Hillary, a truly evil person most likely to win in November. We have Trump on the other side, who has correctly identified and capitalized on the upset and anger resulting from the socialist and frankly idiotic actions of current government.

      Trump is the only one who has a chance to win against Hillary. It wouldnt be a perfect objectivist candidate, but John Galt would probably win only a couple of states IF he were running at this time in our country.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by patricking 2 years, 12 months ago
    Great businessman? Come on! He's been bankrupt 7 times. He's a reality TV star who was HANDED $30,000,000 by his dad when he graduated from Wharton. This guy is James Taggart. He's NO Hank Rearden.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wmbii 2 years, 12 months ago
    IMHO, Donald Trump seems to be one of those establishment-connected businessmen part of whose success has depended on his chummy relationship with the Wesley Mouches of the world.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 3 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I already read those and made comments on them in reply to that post:
    I see nothing in those links about Cruz lying.
    Do you recall the where and when of the tv lies you saw? I can search the internet for them if you tell me what to look for, but I still won't know if its what you saw. (That's why it makes sense for you to do the search and provide the link.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by Esceptico 3 years ago
      I saw Cruz lie on tv about what he did to Carson and that underhanded "voter violation" trick. I saw all the tweets and Cruz flat out lied. He then said it was the fault of somebody else, replaced him, and then pulled the same BS on Rubio by photoshopping the head of Rubio onto another photo with Obama. I saw all this. I do not need links to tell me what I saw. Try youtube, or CNN. It was on CNN that I saw the whole thing as it was happening.

      The links I send went to a different issue, not his lying. They simply dealt with the establishment background of Cruz and his wife.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsrich 2 years, 12 months ago
    The problem in our country is that a very high percentage of the voting population have no idea what the issues are. When 94% block of blacks vote for Obama is all based on race and what's in it for me. Hillary will increase the entitlements and Bernie will give the kitchen sink away. You cannot fight Santa Claus. We are doomed with President Clinton in November. But if you think that is bad watch out for Michelle. She will run for some Senate seat in a couple of years and in six years she will run for President. In my almost 80 years I have seen freedom dwindle and will eventually disappear. I have lost hope as Trump, the apparent winner and Republican nominee will lose badly to Hillary in the general election. I cry for my country.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "Repent"? An odd choice of words from an atheist. What exactly would you have him do? And would you "forgive" him if he did it or would you choose to hold it against him anyways?

    Trump has vowed that he doesn't need to "repent" (his word, not mine) for anything. Do you believe him? Do you hold the same feelings towards his lack of penitence you do for Cruz?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -3
      Posted by Esceptico 3 years ago
      I agree with Trump. I disagree with many of his views, but Cruz lies.

      Cruz needs to repent for his lies -- after all he is a born again christian (he says so). I guess he is not a true christian (according to the other 30,000+ denominations, cults, or whatever of that line of the Abrahamic religions)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago
        Well, I'll leave you to your antipathy, then. Let's just hope that if Trump gets elected, he doesn't prove my assessment correct, or we'll have put into office someone no better than Obama.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by philosophercat 3 years ago
    Trump is not an innovator. His businesses are all existing assets or leveraged assets which only by negotiating the deal did he cause any increased value. His buildings are architecturally bland except Trump Tower for which he never hired that Architect again.
    His deal making is based on finding additional value for the other person to get what he wants. The classic is I get price you get terms. He is not a thinker, has never had a new idea but is superb at taking others ideas or assets and getting what he wants out of them. .

    Only if there is a Republican house and Senate can he be prevented from bumbling blindly about. But he could actually cut government with both houses if they said that is their goal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RationalObjectivist 2 years, 12 months ago
    Partly in reply to Mamaemma's recent comments from three days ago, but also introducing some new thoughts:

    With all due respect, Mamaemma: you cannot know that the woman in the checkout line was an undocumented immigrant. ("Illegal alien" is a disrespectful term. And as a matter of historical fact, Ayn Rand once--with premeditation--violated U.S. immigration law when she came to the U.S. and overstayed her Visa. Keep that in mind.)

    So, you had an emotional reaction to someone who you THOUGHT was undocumented, who was using an EBT card at a store. (How would you know the person was an undocumented immigrant???) Furthermore: You got angry when she laughed at you, in the parking lot. You don't know WHY she laughed. She might have been a legal immigrant or even a natural-born U.S. citizen, and she MIGHT have assumed, (though you never mentioned her race or ethnicity), "Oh, here is another racist, wondering if I am 'legal', and shooting disapproving looks at me, just because I look 'Mexican' and use the EBT card that I am legally entitled to!!"

    I am certain that there are U.S. citizens who "look like" undocumented immigrants, and who get "Looks" from "Real Americans" (so called) every time they use a legally-obtained EBT card or use other social services.

    Do you get as emotionally worked up when a "citizen" uses an EBT card? (And how would you KNOW who is and who isn't a citizen??)

    One thing I like to point out to readers of "Atlas Shrugged" is that Rand's primary villains were not poor people who demanded and used "food stamps". Rand's greatest contempt was for wealthy crony capitalists: such as James Taggart and Orren Boyle.

    Anyone who carefully listens to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama can discern that they would have more contempt for Orren Boyle and James Taggart, (the looting crony capitalists), than they would for Hank Rearden and Dagney Taggart (the productive rich who do not ask for hand-outs). It is in the best interests of crony capitalists among Republicans to argue hard that "Progressives" never make those kinds of distinctions. (Progressives may be sloppy and imprecise in their thinking when they draw distinctions, but they DO draw distinctions.) Notice that Sanders and Warren aim their criticisms at "Wall Street" businesses, not "Main Street" businesses--because WALL STREET has more crony capitalists than Main Street has!!

    The crony capitalists who are within the Republican Party play Objectivists and other libertarians for fools. (Of course, the Democrats have their own crony capitalists, too.) They get the hard-working and productive people who happen to be within the lower and middle class all angered about "Mexican rapists taking YOUR jobs" (Trump), and get you angry at the poor who use social services such as Food Stamps. And when you are angrily focused on poor people on Welfare, you won't notice the thousands of ways that the Crony Capitalists get their snouts in the trough.

    One thing that Objectivists, libertarians and Progressives all should agree on is: eliminating crony capitalism. Then after that is accomplished, they can argue about poor people getting government social services.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by nelly1611 2 years, 12 months ago
    IIf she is an illegal alien how the heck did she get anEBT card. I know I would have asked her how she got that card. And I probably would not be so nice.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 3 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Johnson's problem is name recognition - he has virtually none. And without a major party to back him financially and get him media time, that isn't going to change (not that the media are going to give him much coverage anyway).

    I don't want to be the one throwing cold water, but he's got a long way to go to have a real shot.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years ago
    While scribbling notes a reporter asked if I was writing a song or a new composition.

    "No, I'm planning a memorial to cannon fodder.

    A statue of one soldier standing in a field surrounded by the fallen. As he gazes across the Potomac at the nations capitol the inscription will be

    "The fat lady has yet to sing.
    Gold Medal yet to be won.
    There's still one battle left to fight,
    By grandfathers, fathers, and sons.

    We join our husbands and our fathers
    No baby factories no cannon fodder
    Will we provide to senseless slaughter
    We grandmothers, mothers and daughters.”

    It aired a few days later attributed to Remains Anonymous One older commentator on eFX2 News was asked by a younger colleague what the words might mean?

    "The Dogs Of War have come home. This time to win. Let the earth tremble. ."

    “But it sounds like a declaration of war,” the first objected.

    “No. It sounds like a declaration to finish one started a long time ago.”
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 3 years ago
    I have seen something similar, but it needs to be pointed out as often as possible.

    Either Hillary or Donald will make horrible presidents (especially because they are following the disaster of Obama), however I think Donald will win
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 3 years ago
      I hope the evil woman Hillary loses. Donald winning would be a lot better, but of course not perfect. He would be constrained by the congress substantially, but at least he would veto the more disastrous bills the socialists in the congress passed.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 3 years ago
        I'd much rather see Hillary in jail before the election, and a voter revolt when the GOP leadership picks their candidate in "smoke filled rooms" at the convention.
        Better that dream than the Hillary or Trump statist nightmare.
        Not that I am naive enough to think my dream will happen ;^)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 3 years ago
          It would be great to see Hillary out of the race one way or another- FOR GOOD. In that case, I would re-evaluate my choice for president.
          I agree Hillary isnt going away soon- she has too many powerful friends to keep her out of jail. In the meantime, if Trump can win over her, it gets rid of one really evil nasty candidate. He just wont do the statist nightmare that you envision, and certainly not without the unanimous consent of the congress.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by helidrvr 3 years ago
    This is just one more slash & burn piece to feed the envy driven "let's Trash Trump" frenzy. One of the most basic rules for entrepreneurs is that on average out of every 10 new ventures, 5 will fail, 3 will break even and the remaining two will be successful enough to more than offset the 5 losers. A good entrepreneur keeps trying new ideas, unfazed by the expected majority failures (which one will close down without hesitation) in the knowledge that the more ventures one launches, the more these statistics will work in ones favor. Here is a more balanced review of some of Mr. Trump's failures and successes. Look at the profits generated by the winners and one can readily see why he's way ahead over-all. http://time.com/3988970/donald-trump-...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 years ago
      I agree that the article I posted is biased against Trump but it shows something important about Trump. He isn't the business genius he claims to be..
      The article you posted shows us something important about Trump and about business.
      Trump is successful when he sticks to his "strength": promoting himself (and his ample ego) in real estate in the locale where he has the greatest ability to use his pull.
      That particular "strength" is not what is needed in a president with such massive and far reaching power at his disposal. It is a recipe for dictatorship and disaster.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 3 years ago
        "his 'strength' [is] promoting himself (and his ample ego) in real estate in the locale where he has the greatest ability to use his pull. That particular "strength" is not what is needed in a president with such massive and far reaching power at his disposal. It is a recipe for dictatorship and disaster."

        Take his exploitation of local eminent domain in his "deals" and multiply it by all the power of the Federal government.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 years ago
        Unfortunately his strength in real estate depends heavily upon government cooperation...hence the strange alliances that would normally go against a principled person.
        Now maybe, I'd be cutting off my nose to spite my own business success by not doing business with some of these perverted creatures but that's what I would do.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 3 years ago
        I am a big fan of X-man movies. I think that everyone has one or more of what I would call "x-man superpowers". These superpowers are not the ability to throw fire from your fingertips and things like that, but they are things that for whatever reasons of innate ability, early learning, experiences, etc., make a person better able to perform certain tasks.

        The process of growing up, in my opinion, involves finding out what our x-man superpowers are and then how to use them to get what we want in life.

        You say that Trump's superpower isnt what is needed in this presidental race, but I would disagree. We need someone who can win over enough people to beat that evil woman Hillary- the modern day reincarnation of Nixon's self protection, and the successor to Obama's policies and failures. Of the possible candidates, Trump is the only one who even has a chance to beat her. I know that bothers you in that you think he will be a Hitler-successor, but I really do think he will at least stand in the way of the terrible excesses of Obama, and keep Hillary from destroying the rest of our country (just the $12-15/hr wage would really kill off small businesses)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 3 years ago
          Ah, the Looter Monarch superpower. Just what we need.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 3 years ago
            I bet his employees dont think so !!! Maybe he will do a few things for the country too.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 3 years ago
              Fine let him go back to those who love his majesty. What he will do to the country is the problem.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by term2 3 years ago
                He might just do more FOR the country than do TO it. Like keep Hillary from winning. If I didnt think he could keep Hillary out of my pocket, I wouldnt be so interested in supporting him. But, give me someone else who can get nominated and then beat Hillary. You may think its Cruz, but he cant even win enough states to get nominated, let alone elected. And the rest of the repubs are either not there anymore, or so far down in the primaries as to be dead in the water.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 3 years ago
                  I will be very surprized if Trump is the GOP candidate. If he is, it will be after the GOP leadership have enough blackmail to control him. That will give you the worst president in history, even exceeding the racist in chief.
                  The only way the people ever get a voice is by not wasting votes on the GOP-Dem statist party.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 3 years ago
                    I dont know if he can withstand the barrage of negativity that is being aimed at him and still get to be president. The insiders HATE, HATE, HATE him for exposing their games. Hillary is most likely to be president, and that will spell pretty much the end of our country
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 3 years ago
      You got it right ! It is damn hard to start businesses and have them all succeed. Good entrepreneurs learn to PIVOT when something goes bad- stop it, change it, sell it- and keep on going. Its pretty hard to have perfect knowledge of everything that could affect your business. Sometimes what you think is a perfect product design just isnt accepted by your customers (I have had that happen a couple of times, and I still dont really know what I missed !!)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo