Trump doesnt like political correctness, and I think people should say what they think at the time- and its subject to change with more information and when situations change. I dont mind people changing their minds when they get more information.

Trump is under constant attack by establishment people. He gets blindsided all the time by people who want to make him look bad. Thats a terrible thing to have to deal with, and its why presidents have handlers who tell him through teleprompters what to say. But you get Obama promising to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan during the election, and yet we are still over there 8 years later.

Hillary is bought and paid for. She has powerful supporters. She will get the election with her "superdelegates" no matter what Sanders does. I would rather Sanders wins the democratic nomination actually. He is more honest and lays out his plans for all to see. Hillary is just telling us what her handlers tell her to say.

I dont listen to polls run by people who have a vested interest. He would do best against Hillary I think than any of the other candidates.

Tell me how Kasich could possible win against hillary if he can only win one repub state primary out of 30-something. And how could Cruz win against hillary if he is way far below Trump in voter support. Just doesnt make sense to me. Maybe Trump would lose against Hillary, but that just means the country is too far gone socialist to be even slowed down

Exactly.

The philosophical argument for a conservative will always start with "No", and the next question is 'then what?' and it's not a good place to be in for the argument.

I think we do too much in most cases, and we don't get any return on the dollar invested. Delivery, effectiveness and efficiency is going to be the mechanism of the debate between right and left, but whether we should do those things I don't think is really in question. Yes, we should. How and how much is always going to be the argument.

We also have the question of when parents abdicate their duties. If they neglect and ignore their kids, society will probably inherit the problem. Is it in the country's best interest to require those kids to attend school and get an education. I'd argue yes -because we are respecting the children's rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - because their parents inaction trespasses on their children's rights.

Rights and freedoms are always yours, in my opinion, until they infringe on someone else's rights. I'll defend liberty, and have with a rifle and blood, and I'll defend the blessings of liberty and freedom of speech, until someone denies that right that someone else has.

So, we're in agreement. As I said, the question wasn't 'federal government', it was 'government'. I don't personally believe the federal government should really be in the business of 'delivering' much at all. With an economy as large and complex as the US, we will have 'winners and losers' among the states. The south will regularly be hammered by a hurricane and the west will always have wild fires and the northeast has their blizzards and the midwest has its tornadoes. Can Alabama and Louisiana always cover a Katrina-type event on their own? Probably not. We need the resources of a central government contributed to by all for national defense, for disaster relief and rebuilding, for an interstate transportation system, etc. When the framers developed the Constitution, I doubt Alaska and Hawaii were on the world map, let alone in the plan to be part of the United States. We've grown. Some semblance of common good is needed and I believe the federal government needs to do that. For education, setting minimum standards and some funding-assistance for research grants, school construction, etc. is about all that is really needed. Some communities are too small to fend for themselves on a big ticket expenditure and its in the common good to make sure that all of our population is educated (for example).

Same thing with others, airports and hospitals are expensive and the pooled resources of the nation can benefit us as a whole, because you don't build those every day. Some states with a lot of resources like California and New York are really just 'donor states' and never get back what their populace pays in, if they get 60 cents on the dollar, they are lucky, and it does necessarily lead to higher taxes in those states. Others, like Alaska, get back $1.50 or more on the dollar they contribute. That doesn't make it right or wrong, it's probably strength of their politicians. California and New York are also dead-last in the primary season if you notice, so we're very, very low on the 'promises' lists.

What I'm saying is that he's not necessarily wrong, if anything, it's the educated answer to the question because the detail wasn't asked.

1) I would say Cruz is a bit holier than thou and has a preacher style. That makes his adversaries' hair stand up. He talks the constitution, and congress is essentially socialist and statist. I dont get the feeling he says it like he sees it. He has handlers that tell him what to say.
2) He came out saying gays should be kicked out the military (and that would be for religious reasons). I think soldiers should be hired for their ability, whether gay, straight, female, etc.- not on religious grounds. He also bible thumps, which makes me nervous. I am not into religious tenets written in books thousands of years ago and not questioned since then, having given that stuff up when I was a kid. What else is "god" going to tell Cruz to do- I sure dont know.
3) Deal making has a very bad name when it comes to how much you want to take from me, or the other way around. We are a 50-50 country now. Whatever is voted on seems to steal from me and give to someone else. I would rather NO deals be made on issues like that. That said, in a socialist country like we have, a president would have to simply announce a veto of all new laws for his presidency, and not permit any increases in taxes of any kind or any new taxes. I would vote for that actually, but a candidate would have to lie about it during the election, and just DO it once elected in this philosophical
environment.
4) What would have happened if Repubs had NOT opposed the expansion of socialism? We got an example with Obamacare. Not to say Repubs are free market advocates, but they have offered some slowing down of socialism on occasion.
5) Trump is anti establishment, which is why he is the subject of so much hatred from it. Sanders is also anti establishment, and somehwat honest also (which I respect). He comes out and tells us he is socialist and what he wants to do (which the congress would probably go along with, unfortunately).
5) We dont need another preacher like Obama or Hillary or Cruz for that matter. They all appeal to emotions that allow for the establishment to continue. Where do you think Cruz or Hillary gets their contributions (how about Goldman Sachs and wall street). At least Trump is on his own and doesnt have to pander to them.

hear, hear! -- j
.

So what do we actually know? Most of Cruz' support has not come from the billionaires. The Koch brothers have refused to support a candidate until after the Primaries and have indicated they may not even then. Cruz has raised his money primarily from the grassroots. Is it admirable that Trump is funding his own candidacy? To a degree, but there is a second question to raise: do we only want to elect a President who is one of the ultra-wealthy? That is what you are ultimately saying in the argument on financing. Everyone deserves the First Amendment right to Expression and participation in the election process, do they not?

No, he's not. Your choices are Cruz - which will pontificate and think of himself as a messiah as he stands in front of a dark room with nobody in it for 23 hours reading Dr. Seuss nursery rhymes into the congressional record and pissing in a jar when he needs to relieve himself. A self-declared socialist, enough said. A RINO that took a $586,000 donation from George Soros (Kasich). Or quite honestly the epitome of evil and corruption in the modern world (Clinton). Clinton is also buddies with Soros (and I'm sure Bernie is for that matter). That is the worst possible company to keep, besides the MoveOn.org and Occupy stuff, he originally got his wealth as a Nazi collaborator, turning in fellow jews and then 'reclaiming' their valuables, real estate, and property for the Nazis but keeping some for himself. It just doesn't get much more evil than that.

Trump has a track record of efficiently completing tasks, but more importantly delegating responsibility to experts and trusting and acting on that advice. The ability to delegate and trust the results is something that is sorely lacking in government - the existing preference is to ignore the problem until you retire and let someone else deal with it.

"I had thought reporters were there to get the "truth". "

hehe. If only. I think that's been primarily relegated to the X-Files now. ;)

"Trump is not run by political correctness, which is one thing I like about him."

Political correctness is one thing. It is quite another to fly off at the mouth in undisciplined response about every topic that comes up. Would Hillary be worse for this nation? I don't doubt it. But let's not put the cart before the horse. Trump hasn't secured the nomination - nor has Hillary. Until those respective events take place, I will keep my options open.

I would also point out that Trump fares very badly in polls in a one-on-one contest against Hillary Clinton. The only poll in which Trump wins is the Fox poll, and even in that one it is a statistical ties. In many of the others he's getting blown out as bad as John McCain to Obama in the 2008 election.

I suppose government tries to take over when individuals dont do the rational things, like educate their kids that THEY decided to have. As long as education was private and there was competition, it would be up to the parents to pick among them- or do home schooling if they couldnt afford it.
As to medical care, I would still like it ot be private. The problem with insurance is that at one time or another we will all need a lot of medical care. Its not like flood insurance, where nonly a few people will actually use it. Everyone is going to get sick and eventually die, so an argument could be made that overall, the amount you pay in premiums should cover quite a large set of bills that you will incur.

Yes, Cruz is disliked by many in Congress. Why? Because he does what he says he will do and he calls it like he sees it. And please give me a SINGLE instance where Cruz has promoted his religion as policy in the public sphere. That's a red herring at best and openly disingenuous at worst. What we do know is that he has prevailed in defending the original intent of both the First and Second Amendments before the Supreme Court - not exactly an easy task. I don't care if he's liked. I care about his positions.

Regarding deal-making, that's all we've been getting from Republicans for twenty years. What has it gotten us? $20 trillion in debt, an expansion in welfare programs, terrible trade deals, and an even worse foreign policy. I don't want the idea of getting things done to "trump" (pun intended) getting things right! I want a principled President who isn't afraid to turn President Obama's own refusal to negotiate with Republicans back on the heads of the Democrats! The art of deal-making is first and foremost to know what position you have and know what lines you will not cross. I don't see Trump as being able to draw those lines.

Are Trump's supporters mad at the GOP Establishment and standard Washington politics? Yup. And so are Ted Cruz'. And so are Bernie Sanders' for that matter. But mob rule is a ridiculous claim to authority or substantiation for moral character. In a forum where the participants value logical thought and reason, we recognize as have many throughout history that democracy's Achilles' heel is the passionate mob. We don't need another Barack Obama who plays on the emotions of the voters. We need someone to educate voters on why socialist policies will destroy this nation.

Same argument. Essentially, it is the job of government to sponsor and create conditions for those types of services to be effective. We can discuss freely the advantages of the free market, etc., but if the question is what are the primary missions of the government, I'd probably answer the same thing. How that is accomplished becomes a question for conservative versus liberal politics, but the responsibility does remain that of the government. Without it, we're back to the 1800s with child labor, immigrant squalor in crappy New York tenements and no hope.

Methods, efficiency, and effectiveness are the realm for political debate, but ultimately those three things and probably a couple of more are in the government's wheelhouse in some way, shape, or form. I'm not an anarchist, I believe in a necessary and 'good' government. I believe in limited government as well, but essential services are just that "essential".

There was once a day when a country doctor could open up a shop that was built on his own land, or the land was given to him/her, no mortgage, a few pennies a day for a secretary or whatever and cash-payment for services rendered. With pharmaceutical therapy, lease payments of thousands of dollars per use on an MRI/CT/PET scanners, radiology, etc., it's not practical to do purely fee for service and ultimately some societal level baseline support is needed for modern medicine (whether that is HMOs, PPO's, single-payer, whatever) again is an argument for political theory.

We can then move onto whether the government should, for example, be employing 3 million federal civil servants and at least as many contractors, whether it should be sponsoring (paying for) advanced research, or if the EPA should be regulating small businesses or if there should even be a minimum wage statute. I'll gladly take on those conversations as well and always with a very "90%" far-right leaning - I'm not pegging the red line on conservatism, but I'm pretty darn close. One of the largest line-items in the budget behind Medicare & Social Security and Defense is going to be the Earned Income Tax Credit. If you pay in $600 for income taxes, you sure-as-shit shouldn't be getting a $9,000 tax refund. So promoting the common welfare is a responsibility for government, income redistribution most certainly is not.

Again, whether that is the business of government is enumerated in the Constitution. That slightly-off-redline in me will also acknowledge that the framers didn't foresee strip-mining or petrochemicals, so we probably do need an efficient and effective environmental control and I believe the forests and natural beauty of our country should be protected indefinitely with the national park system. Or, quite honestly, people would destroy those things. I live near Folsom, California, people think we have these weird little molehills everywhere, no, that's the tailings from the gold dredges that dug 100 feet down in the American River Valley and spit out 2 inch rocks in literally, thousands of 40-foot tall piles along its banks. I don't believe in destroying the rights of future generations to enjoy our heritage, we're not Chinese.

So, responsibility yes, how that is executed is very debatable and I'll be on the conservative side of the aisle in all cases.

Surprise!

But Cruz is hated by the other members of congress, and will not be able to cooperate on anything, particularly when he starts his bible thumping stuff. Congress is basically socialist and wont want to give up power or taxation. It will take a lot of "deal making" to get even a little power reduction. Thats what I am expecting from Trump. He tells it like it is and has a LOT of supporters who are pissed off at the establishment.

I had thought reporters were there to get the "truth". But I do realize they are there to get ratings any way they can, which makes me far less interested in playing their game.
Trump is not run by political correctness, which is one thing I like about him. Running in the public arena is ALL about political correctness and appearing one way or another to gain votes (unfortunately). I am not surprised therefore that the so called reporters trap him in ways to show he isnt politically correct. He may never survive this, but it would be unfortunate to be saddled with the evil witch woman who is VERY good at handling political correctness and telling a majority what they want to hear. Of course after being elected, she will simply do what her contributors tell her to do (As Obama has done)

Of the candidates, he is the one most likely to get the best deal we can get from the legislature. At least Trump isnt bought and paid for by his contributors, which none of the other candidates can claim. The contributors run the candidates after they are elected in order to repay the contributions with political favors. Crooked, but Hillary is the posterchild for that one.

IF - and it's a HUGE "IF" - Trump does it, I'm all for it. I remain skeptical. And when there is another candidate who actually has a record of doing what he says he will do (and that happens to support the Founders' view of the Constitution) I think it's a mistake to side with the "maybe" over the "been there, done that".

That's what he says, but the reality is that there are an awful lot of politicians who say one thing, then get elected, and you never hear boo later. Without a record to run on, all we can do is hope that's what he's going to do. Let's just say I remain a solid skeptic that Trump will actually work with the Legislature to do any of what he says. I would love for it to happen, don't get me wrong, but we've heard these same lines from Republicans for the past six years.

One of his more embarrassing lapses.

The proper functions of government are crime prevention, security from invasion, and peaceful dispute resolution.

Reporters aren't there to make you look good (unless you're a Democrat). They're there to drive viewership and ratings. It is the job of one's campaign managers and spokespeople to make one look good - AND PRIMARILY ONE'S SELF! Reporters aren't going to get any "better" than they are now until they go bankrupt, so politicians are going to have to deal with them. And as much as Trump loves being in the media spotlight, to complain about getting what he wants is hypocritical and ridiculous.

Trump needs to stop whining about how everyone is treating him "unfairly". He ought to read Bill Gates' book about rules for business. #1 is that life isn't fair and just get over it. (I also like one of the others which is never make fun of nerds because you're likely to end up working for one.)

I think that being on the public stage being questioned by hostile reporters is very difficult to deal with. Once president, Trump would be surrounded by smart advisors who would help him make decisions- in the same way he did in his business (and very successfully). Anderson Cooper just wants to make drama so he looks good- he isnt interested in bringing out the best in any of the candidates. He just wants to trip them up so they look bad.

The problem with education is that one needs competition in order for it to work. Public education by and large, particularly when done by federal mandates, has NO competition, and slowly gets worse and worse as entrenched power brokers bend it towards them.

Same thing with federal health care. I had a lot better insurance situation BEFORE obamacare. It cost me 1/3 as much and there was $1000 max out of pocket instead of $6000+. Obamacare has NO competition and should be repealed.

And Trump is for cutting the federal government out as much as possible and returning it to the states. Sounds good to me. Hillary sure isnt going to do that. She is bought and paid for by the establishment.

Although it would be nice to get the monopolistic federal government OUT of a lot of things, and return power to the states, counties, and cities, its not going to happen overnight. I think its prudent to elect politicians who at least will cut BACK on government powers and taxation. I read Trump's comments as doing just that- getting rid of dept of education and common core, getting rid of obamacare and returning it to private enterprise with competition, and reducing taxes. As I said, he isnt john galt.

You are a true trump hater, and it wouldnt matter what he said. You just want Hillary as president- the one you will surely get if Trump is trashed. Good luck with that.

"I'm just pointing out that technically, he is not necessarily wrong. "

Perhaps, but the way he said it was at best confusing and at worst contradictory. Trump would have done better to just pause, collect his thoughts and then respond that they were three important issues facing our nation, but that he would say healthcare and education were better handled by the private sector. The way he actually phrased it established one line of thinking and his details went the other way.

"I personally think that certain things, only government 'can do' and ensure they are done"

I agree. I think there are some things most effectively and efficiently done at a governmental level. The question is at which level is a particular service Constitutional and, secondly, most effective.

"But I know public education can work, it comes down to management and our unwillingness to fire people that are incompetent..."

You admirably point out the keys that make it either work (or not). But I think we will both agree that education is best done at a local level and that the Federal Government should get out of the way entirely. I've see both sides of both public and private education and seen flaws either way.

"I also think that a minimum level of healthcare should be part of the social safety net..."

I think we would both agree, however, that the Federal Government should not be involved in healthcare at all - not only because it is unConstitutional, but because it is inefficient and ineffective. Even at a State level, however, I would argue that it is a slippery slope argument and that it only exacerbates perhaps the biggest problem in the healthcare system: the third-party payer problem. I say it is a slippery slope because then you're getting into which services and procedures you're going to cover and which ones you aren't, which is bound to be mired in politics. The easier solution is to allow patients and doctors to negotiate directly on services and payments. If one wants to allow a patient to submit such expenses for payment by a government safety net, I will allow that the Ninth and Tenth Amendment seem to put those powers in the nands of the States to try out.

"The government does a decent job of running the military, but there are no unions..."

Lol. I'm just trying to imagine what a union-run military could even look like. I'm just getting pictures of a battlefield commander ordering a recovery unit out to repair a damaged tank and the recovery unit lieutenant responding to the order with "Well, we're on break right now, but we'll get back to it in another half-hour. And those repairs are probably going to take a couple of days to complete because that kind of work requires two extra guys to hand us parts..."