The first step in my opinion is to bring what the government does to LIGHT. So much is hidden from us that its hard to deal with it. Hillary is the poster child for hidden deals behind our backs, and I definitely do NOT want her in power. Sanders really wouldnt get anywhere if he were president- he is too far socialist for right now. Maybe in 4 years, the socialists will totally take over, but not right now.

Governmental "excesses" are built into law which the Executive branch must enforce and act to impose. Who is president makes a difference, but he can't decide on his own to allow the agencies to function.

Yes, its all about the establishment. Trump will bust up the power. Which I want. The delegate system and the rules are designed to keep out an anti-establishment candidate. The GOP is dead to me and should go down. It stands for nothing, and is just as into cronyism as the Democrats, which stand for nothing either. Then there is Hillary, who is not a human but a chameleon in disguise. She makes promises to everyone that we all know she wont keep if elected. She is going to pander to her financial supporters, thats all.

Romney IS into envy over the popularity of Trump and the relative lack of popularity of himself.

Trump does not have a majority of the primary votes or delegates. You have just been given an explanation of why he is ahead with a plurality and split votes but is much more unpopular with record high negatives.

Romney is not motivated out of personal envy for Trump. The establishment wants the power for themselves and knows a loon when they see one.

But don't write it in any college students' Safe Space or they'll track you down and beat the shit out of you...
It's the New American College Way.
:(

+1

One can only hope that pareidolia is not rampant among Trump supporters. However, I'm starting to consider that "The League of Shadows" has slipped something into the water supply. :-)

The next time I go to Atlanta, I may go write Trump in chalk on a sidewalk. I guess water does not wash chalk anymore. If that offends you, the issue lies within you.

I may write Clinton or Bernie too somewhere and see if it gets any hate.

A good friend of mine from college lives in Sweden. He's been there the past 20 years or so. Dates nothing but extremely beautiful women. I asked him and he seemed pretty tight-lipped about the immigrants abusing women. I have seen footage of the migrants walking up and literally punching blondes in the face. Frankly, I wouldn't allow that in my community. (that's all I'm going to say about that...)

I have looked at the number of citizens overall who have cast votes for trump vs who have cast votes for other candidates. He comes out on top by a lot over Cruz, rubio, and lasich. His delegate count is also higher. I am not pretending he has more support;. He just has. He is the anti establishment candidate who has correctly identified the Good ol boys in Washington are crony capitalists who don't tell the truth. Cruz IS the establishment

The old goo guard wants to stay in power. And hate trump. Romney hates trump out of envy. Hillary is afraid of trump and verbally is encouraging hop to dump him so she can win. From these polls you quote it would appear Hillary would win like 80% of the popular vote. Trump has more actual primary votes than Hillary does or Cruz does, which makes me think these polls you quote aren't reliable

You have repeatedly pushed Trump in the primaries as better than Clinton, without regard to the others in the primary, along with the emotional fervor of bald assertions about 'making the country great' without regard to principle vs Trump's own overtly Pragmatist Deals idea of government power.

The evidence that Cruz (or Kasich) can beat Clinton and Trump can't, the opposite of what you keep announcing as if it were fact, is the numerous polls that show them significantly head and Trump significantly behind Clinton so far.

Trump's lead in the primaries to this stage are still a minority fraction of Republican voters, based on a minority zealot support in a primary with multiple split votes beginning with 17 candidates. Trump has record breaking negative rankings that have kept him from getting a majority and work against him even more in the general election. The splitting of votes among other Republicans, most of whom are now out, has allowed Trump to be ahead in delegates but not in popularity. That is why Cruz has wanted the others to drop out long ago rather than be spoilers with no chance of winning, and is why he can be ahead in the primaries with the worst chance in the general election.

It remains to be seen if Trump can get a majority at a contested convention if he still lacks the delegates he needs going in, which seems likely. If he does, he has a lot of work ahead of him to undo the damage he has done to himself causing such high negatives.

I don't ignore the other candidates at all. I liked rand Paul for his relatively consistent ideas. But he got no traction. I was initially impressed by carson until the religiosity took over and his traction disappeared along with his bid for the job. I looked at Cruz but. His religiosity was a bit much for me. They say he can beat Hillary, but if he can't beat trumps vote count, and it's said trump can't beat hillary, then how could Cruz beat Hillary?. Not logical.
That leaves trump as our chance to beat Hillary.

Worshipful idolatry is part of the emotional man-on-the-white-horse syndrome substituting for principles and rational evaluation with respect to them. That lack characterizes politics as a whole; Trump is cashing in on it.

"Of course not" but you keep saying it anyway.

All of the candidates have been discussed here. It's you who has insisted on ignoring the other candidates in the primary while falsely insisting despite the evidence that Trump is the only one who can beat Hillary.

it's like Rush says ... from your core. -- j
.

Of course not. BUT, all I hear is negatives about Trump, and nothing about the other candidates. I cant believe he is the worst of all the candidates (especially the democratic candidates). It seems to me that electing the least of the evils is better than allowing a REALLY evil one like Hillary in there. Trump is the only one with popular support to beat Hillary. The other repubs cant even beat Trump with the voters, and are only still there because the GOP establishment is ganging up to get rid of him (he must really be a threat to the establishment is all I can say).

The whole election is getting boring, especially since the country is heading for a disasster with socialism anyway and the only reason to vote is to slow it down somewhat.

If John Galt were in the race (which he wouldnt want to be anyway given the cronyism built into our government), he would hardly get anywhere in a popular contest.

You can't evade every rejection of Trump as nothing but "Trump haters".

In this case it was probably more incompetence than PC. They already had these clowns fingered. They knew who and what they were, with a long list of evidence, but did nothing.

Yes, people didnt like political correctness already, but were afraid to be politically correct in their actions and words.

Trump brought the issue to the surface and said that it WAS ok to ignore political correctness.

I give him credit for that part, and am happy that he brought the issue up as he has.

You dont have to give Trump credit for anything if you want. There are Trump haters out there, and apparently you are one of them. Thats what I think, even if its politically incorrect on this forum

I have no problem with using equivalent force on terrorists as they use on innocents... or even more if appropriate.

Not at all. I was simply wondering if the reporting had been delayed say 48 hours, whether law enforcement would have picked them up before they attacked or sat on their hands like PC dictates.

After the string of seemingly weekly reports of mass shootings at defenseless school targets, my first reaction when hearing mention of an attack at "Paris" was "what American university is called 'Paris'"?

But allowing the supposedly guaranteed 2nd amendment right to bear arms is not the same as telling everyone to "pack heat". It would stop some of the attacks but also a lot more with everyone running around ready to take the law into his own hands in a frenzy of "packing heat". After 'brain turns on" think of it in terms of encouraging self protection with carefully thought out responsible use of very limited use of self defense with the right of having a gun.

Everyone knows there will be future attacks. They are already planned and being planned. Are we supposed to not say that and not arrest them out of fear that it will 'cause' them?

Political incorrectness was already accepted. Trump didn't do that. People were waiting for some leader to recognize it. Trump did, but it doesn't make the 'man on the white horse' mentality the kind of political leader we need.

Haha! That's great. I loved Archie Bunker...