Ted Cruz does not endorse Trump Based on Principles

Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 9 months, 1 week ago to Politics
355 comments | Share | Flag

Aside from the issues and facts that Mark presents; what about the constitutional values we expect our presidents, our presidential candidates and our representatives to pledge unswerving dedication to...their fortunes, their most sacred honor or their lives to. Isn't that much more important than the "Party"?

I have to laugh even though it's a bit sicking, they booed when Cruz said: "Vote your conscience" "Vote for the candidate you trust and a candidate that will adhere to the constitution.
Kind of makes one think. By the way...that pledge?...was discarded March 29th by the Don himself...

We find ourselves here in these times because we haven't adhered to the constitution...have we not?

SOURCE URL: https://www.levintv.com/videos/ep-94--ted-cruz-does-not-endorse-trump--rnc-convention


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by bsudell 9 months, 1 week ago
    Then they were being moronic. Trump called Cruz' wife ugly, said his father was part of JFK murder, and said Cruz was a liar and cheat! What man would endorse Trump after that. Cruz pledged to support (not endorse) him. Cruz told Trump he would not endorse him. Trump, the media, and the insiders knew. Cruz had to give them a copy of his speech. They read, knew what was in it. This was an effort by Trump and the GOP to destroy Cruz. The female astronaut didn't endorse Trump, but that didn't seem to be a problem. They were going after Cruz because they hate him. He stands against the GOP and Progressives like Trump. He is the only one who would have gotten government out of the way of the people and let them flourish. Instead, two Democrats are our choice. Makes me sick. I will write in Ted Cruz. #NeverTrump #NeverHillary.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  9 months ago
      This should quell the debate on "endorsements" or not....Re- Listen to the first Minuit of Newt's speech...he stated that the don invited many of his competitors to speak with No Requirement for an Endorsement... http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/newt-gin...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by bsudell 9 months ago
        And, we should always "vote our conscience." That's what the Trumpers are doing; they think he's great and that he will be great for the country. At least, I hope that's what they think.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by bsudell 9 months ago
          Your words, not mine. I'm #NeverTrump.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by roneida 9 months ago
            Then you may as well resign your proud self to being ''Forever Hillary" that's your choice,,,good luck.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by bsudell 9 months ago
              Also #NeverHillary. If she wins, it will be because of the people that vote for her. Trump is the male version of Hillary. He will destroy us.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by roneida 9 months ago
                bsudell... And just what is the alternative??? more Obama P C B S??? It's time to make some stand other than suicide, America is stronger than what has been on display for the last 8 years of bad government,,,the alleged "Leaders" have failed miserably except for showing how not to do it..I I think Trump is a better gamble than Clinton because he has the nerve to defy the entrenched, corrupt incompetent bureaucrats who do nothing but force their distorted vengeful hatred of America through P C nonsense and anti American anger,. The worst Trump could do would be to get has immature ass impeached and there will be plenty trying to do that.. He has a far better success story than Clinton who has been hiding in her husband's shadow for all their life together. She would be some forgotten, disagreeable shrew hiding in some political staff job in some obscure department of Malcontent if she hadn't been sharp enough to marry Bill. God bless Bill for taking her off our hands.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  9 months ago
                  The alternative is a Conscious Human Being with an integrated mind...for a change.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by roneida 9 months ago
                    Olduglycarl.... I will eagerly vote for such a person if you give me his.her name . Otherwise, I stand by my lesser-of 2 evils method. I refuse to Not Vote..
                    If the idiots see there are 150 million voters? out there and not just 50 million, they will be more afraid of being watched and exposed.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  9 months ago
                      Most anyone here could run...provided we were good little boys and girls when we were little boys and girls. I will not vote for evil any more, regardless of the degree. I'll vote Johnson.
                      It's likely neither T or H will get to 270 unless one cheats better than the other.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by roneida 9 months ago
                        Olduglycarl...That's my point...don't just drop out and not be counted. If you know of a candidate you prefer,,rock on.. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is ugly. Trump has trumped much more so far this year than has the queen..she has overcame no obstacles from any group except the F B I,
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -2
      Posted by kcir321 9 months ago
      And never Cruz
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by bsudell 9 months ago
        Disagree. We have to stand AGAINST the GOP, who are forcing these idiots down our throat. Let them know that we will NOT vote for them. Trump was NEVER a Republican. Just because he switched parties and said he's a Republican (or believes in the Republican principles) does not mean that he is. He's a liberal, NY Democrat. I will NOT vote for that. If you want to vote Democrat, go ahead. Your choice. But, I will let the GOP know that we want Constitutionalists. I will write in Ted Cruz, the only Reagan-like candidate, the only Constitutionalist. That is who I believe in.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by roneida 9 months ago
          bsudell... you are right, but, no one is forcing anyone down your throat. The reason Trump ended up as the Republican candidate is because the "Elite" spent all their time ignoring him while they tried to block him but did not positively endorse or help any of the others. There were some good candidates on that debate stage and all the "Wise men" in their stupidity and disdain of America, said, "He can never make it" at least 5000 times.
          The GOP Shot themselves and all of us in the feet with their arrogance. Hillary and Obama won't beat us...we gave up the fight ourselves.

          Next time, if ever, pay attention.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by bsudell 9 months ago
            Yes and no. The "elite" supported the "establishment." But Trump was a "star" of sorts, so the media picked on him, as did some of the people. He was well known. And, then the Democrats helped him get in by voting for him in the "open" primaries. The "elite" hate Cruz and did not want him to win. They know he will spoil their game against the people. They would rather have seen Trump win than Cruz. Now We the People have a mess and no good choices. Shame on us for not supporting the only strong Constitutionalist.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by roneida 9 months ago
              As I stated above, to the Constitutionalists, next time pay attention. Trump not only defeated his democrat opposition but also the Republican naysayers. I would doubt that Hillary defeated any opposition to win the nod..Sanders was a put up shill, crash test dummy to avoid the appearance of too much confidence by running no opposition to the queen. It's possible most voters missed how much Trump has trumped so far...his money did not buy this as opposed to the highly suspect Clinton foundation.Trump or Obama #3...take a stand..fight back.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by bsudell 9 months ago
                His fame did. People are fools for fame. He is a liberal, NY Democrat, and he does NOT belong on the Republican ticket.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by roneida 9 months ago
                  And what is the excuse for Hillary??? maybe being married to a world famous political star who is famous for even more than his adultery, or maybe the highly suspect crooked Clinton foundation with uncounted millions of foreign donations or maybe it is her girlish charm and mellifluous speaking voice. If the sloths in charge? of the Republicans hadn't been such cocky jerks, they may have had a different candidate.... As of now Trump has trumped...get used to it. Vote for Hillary if it makes you all moist with revenge satisfying but quit the infantile hate crying, it's time to take a stand.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months, 1 week ago
    I predicted more than two months ago that Ted Cruz - if he spoke at all - would do just exactly what he did: he wouldn't explicitly endorse Donald Trump and that he would speak about the importance of the Constitution of the United States.

    What to me is so telling is that Cruz was booed for standing up for Constitutional principles by those there in attendance. Tells me all I need to know about the Republican Party right there.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ycandrea 9 months, 1 week ago
      That is not why they were booing him.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months, 1 week ago
        No, they were booing him at the behest of Donald Trump. Reporters talked to appointed "whips" in among the delegates. Those whips worked for the Trump campaign and had been going around for hours ahead of Cruz' speech instructing people on their acceptable reactions to Cruz' speech. Remember, Trump knew what Cruz was going to say days before he actually delivered the speech. The crowd reactions weren't spontaneous or honest at all - except from those Trumpsters who had it out for Cruz in the first place.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by fosterj717 9 months ago
      Kind of goes to show why this country is in such a sad state! Many people know little if anything about the Constitution and don't care to know consequently, they attack those who espouse something they don't understand. Cruz fell into that category. Instead, people go for the "bling" of flashy wealth and populist soundbite politics.

      All they want to do is cling to soundbites and mesmerized by personalities with little regard to the substance and realities of politics in this country.

      Presidential elections are now almost exclusively about the "attractiveness" of Fric & Frac with little about the meaning and substance of what they say other than one is not the other.

      We think that we are given choices however, in reality, the choices we are given only ensure the outcome wanted by an overarching oligarchy that is truly what runs our world.

      This tried and true approach is similar to the approach wise parents take when they give their young children choices however the choices are always the one's that the parents can live with.

      The same can be said about our choices we have between R's and D's. We "seem" to have clear-cut choices however when push comes to shove, we end up with exactly what these shadowy overlords want and that is an never-ending slide towards a totalitarian society ruled by a NWO under the auspices of Socialism and the tagline "Law and Order".

      This seems to be very similar if you ask me to the Fabian-esque world envisioned by George Orwell and as attempted in Nazis Germany and Stalinist Russia! Gramsci, Allinsky and Hegel - Perfect together!
      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 9 months, 1 week ago
      You thought they were any different from the other left wing socialist party with a penchant for fascism? One is statist/corporatist and the other corporatist/statist. One is the left wing of the left and the other is the right wing of the left.
      Cruz chose to lie with swine and got dirty. What did he expect. Bernie knew he was dirty when he jumped in the slop trough. Smalll insignificant difference. What? Cruz thought he'd be treated special.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  9 months, 1 week ago
        He knew... I listened to a phone call after and he said he knew he was entering the lions den when he took trumpet up on the invitation to speak only to the republican voters and not to endorse which the requirement was already null and void.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fosterj717 9 months, 1 week ago
    It is amazing that this has become all about Trump and the party over that of the country. Since when is voting your conscience wrong? After limited watching of that "convention" I have come to the conclusion, the party is wrong and the candidate did not show the leadership ability that the job he is seeking requires.

    There is more to leadership than just bullying those who don't agree with you or leveraging the fact that if you pay someone, you can be a tyrant to get things done.

    The leadership that I am looking for (and didn't get) was to see a man wise enough to reach out to those with whom he had differences with (I.e., Cruz) and go the mile to make things right. Instead what we get from him and his strident followers is "we don't need your vote" and as with Cruz, giving him absolutely no reason to jump on board.

    I will always (at least from this date forward) vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may! Without "real" leadership from the presidency, we are doomed no matter which clown wins. Congress will continue on its merry way ignoring the electorate and the Judiciary will continue legislating from the bench.

    Where is our Cicero???!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by roneida 9 months ago
      Dream on in your fog of righteousness...you will have 8 years of Hillary to sober you up back to the reality world. enjoy your petty hatred of Trump and look forward o more socialist-democrat tyranny.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months ago
        DT is another O, "make America great again" is just as empty as "Hope and change", in fact its the same exact sentiment. It really doesn't matter which one you get. DT or HC, because they are different sides of the same crappy coin fished out of the sewer drain.

        Hate has nothing to do with my view. Reality does. DT helped make this problem what it is by funding all the politicians he's against now. But hey, lets put all that aside because today he says he's conservative, he's republican (his kids aren't) and he's upset with DC (even though he profited from sinking millions into their pockets and pal'ed around with them).

        He's going to flip on everything an anything he promised within a year if elected. Why? Hope and change...errr make America great again.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by fosterj717 9 months ago
          Spot on! Unfortunately thanks to the stupidity of the American electorate, we were saddled with Bush, Obama and now either Trump or Clinton. We have truly hit the bottom of the barrel if you ask me!

          With this election, one can say that the chickens are coming home to roost and we are getting exactly what we deserve. This is what happens when you now have generations of brainwashed people who vote by soundbite alone or on the promise of getting something for nothing! What a country!!!
          Ayn must be spinning in her grave to see how far we have fallen!!!!! They who live by the 30 second soundbite will suffer by the 30 second soundbite as well. Just like this "Law and Order" garbage (remind you of Adolf Hitler's Nazis Germany??). That and the willingness of people to toss away their freedoms based upon some vague promise of security and/or justice. Ben Franklin warned us of that trap so, beware that "soundbite" that sounds so good!

          Will people ever learn or, are we doomed to keep making these same idiotic mistakes!?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months ago
            This quotes been getting alot of use lately but it does apply.

            "When an opponent declares, “I will not come over to your side,” I calmly say, “Your child belongs to us already… What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.”
            Adolf Hitler
            Speech November 1933, quoted in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer

            and here we are...to what end?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by roneida 9 months ago
          I'm not blindly defending the arrogant and stupid Republican s who allowed Obama to happen and ruin what little good there left, but I am reminding all those who so blithely hate DT to remember that they will be responsible for subjecting America to 8 more years of Obama PC government dictatorship by executive order and decree through Obama's surrogate Hillary, and I can't imagine what hell will come after that. Hide your money, your family and your possessions because they will be gone. We are very near a socialist-commie takeover of our government and once the identity politics is completely cemented, we are lost. Obama and Hillary will eventually fade into oblivion like Al Gore and Dan Quayle, but their evil disciples who vote for them will multiply like vermin.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by fosterj717 9 months ago
        "Fog of Righteousness"? Interesting take on my uttering just a "Simple" Truth that should be evident to anyone who understands the workings of the world, especially American politics!

        It is obvious that you do not fully understand what a President can do and what they cannot on their own volition!

        You should realize that Obama had both the House and Senate under Progressive Democrat control. They did his bidding because they were of the same mind as he was!

        The Republicans on the other hand can't even figure out what they believe in let alone be willing to unite behind Trump. Most Rs that he will have to deal with hate him for various reasons....you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out now do you?

        The only way he will be able to get much of what he is "promising" the unwashed masses are beyond his capability (and wealth). He will have to wait for the electorate to provide him "like-minded" Congressman and women in both the House and the Senate in order to ramrod through his "stated" agenda!

        Correct me if I am wrong about the lawful process including the advise and consent of congress and the sad fact that the other leg of the triad being the judiciary will not just roll over for his bluster. That! Is the sad fact of life! Unless that is you know of some other way (legal of course)......
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by roneida 9 months ago
          Do and think as you wish,,,just remember that those who hate Trump will be remembered for bringing America 8 more years of Obama through his evil Hillary and God only knows what after that. I'm not blindly defending the stupid Republicans who allowed Obama to take over through their own sloth and ignorance,. I'm just weighing the lesser of 2 evils we face.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by fosterj717 9 months ago
            Do me a favor, I have never said that I "hated" Trump, as a matter of fact, I probably will hold my nose and vote for him come November but, that doesn't mean I love him or hate him, it just means that I am again forced to choose between two totally wrong candidates for this office (my opinion!).

            The only thing that I have been doing is pointing out the obvious based upon reality and not wishful thinking. I have decided that I will not! put on any rose colored glasses for this election specifically.

            So there you have it. I am NOT a hater, but that doesn't mean that I have to hide my head in the sand either! For what its worth!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by roneida 9 months ago
              Anyone who does not "hate", or more properly P C , "dislike", what has happened to America under the Obama regime, and will certainly worsen under the Clinton mess, will do everything possible to ensure the Clinton success. Stopping Trump is the first step. Rock on and just remember there was an option... not ideal, but at least an attempt to stop the lefties from total takeover. No doubt in my mind that the Republicans are to blame for allowing this to happen,, all it takes for evil to win is for enough good people to do nothing.
              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 9 months ago
          The Republicans didn't need to figure anything out just bark on command. They are nothing more than the yippy yappy lap dogs of the left and their proper place is the right wing OF the left.

          Except for maybe 15 in the Senate. We'll see what happens when Trump takes over and reshapes the Republicans in his image chuckle chuckle.

          No matter what it will be an improvement.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  9 months ago
            You mean that they'll all have comb overs and squinty eyes?
            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 9 months ago
              or razor cuts and spectacles
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  9 months ago
                I'm not sure which will be worse...laughing inappropriately.
                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 9 months ago
                  I can't have a comb over unless it 's from side to side even then considering the distance it has to cover to reach the overpoint it would most likely detach at the anchor point. Haven't been to the barber in decades. I have a Wahl or is it Wohl comes with a lot snap on stuff so one can experiment. The finale is no snapons, ( why does that remind me of John and Lorena Bobbit?) With no snap ons it perfectly prepares the entire head for even growth replenishment and the face for the Remington Razor. Getting rid of ZZ Top saved a lot of money in shampoo for a small investment in Hawaiian Tropic. I also found a new problem solver for getting carded at 7-11 or Oxxo. Hold on to your chair. Just For Men now comes in grey!!! Haven't been carded once since I began a regular regimen.

                  That's Stylin' Hard for this week. Look for our guest article-er in just seven days.

                  This is the decision point
                  to laugh or not to laugh
                  That is the question.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by starznbarz 9 months, 1 week ago
    Exactly right. The Constitution has been on the losing side for many years, especially the last 8, The Obama/Clinton crew realize they have the opportunity to complete 100 years of incremental communism - and they know a Cruz type will put a stop to it and a Trump will abuse it against (some) of them. No matter which one wins, Liberty loses.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Suzanne43 9 months, 1 week ago
    We might have the Law of Unintended Consequences going on here. I came across a few people today who were angry that Cruz didn't endorse The Trumpster. They were not enthusiastic Trump supporters, but they are now. Maybe party unity trumps (pun intended) principles for a lot of people..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  9 months, 1 week ago
      And no one pays attention, no one realizes the
      "Pledge" was disregarded by donny boy himself on Mar. 29...no one pays attention to the vial idiotic attack on Cruz's wife and Cruz's Dad...And the ignorant creatons expected him to bow down after That?
      Trumpet asked Cruz to speak and speak about the principles the party should endorse, Knowing full well he wasn't going to endorse. They all knew! and so did Fox!

      The Fix is in...the establishment wins and we lose again...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  allosaur 9 months, 1 week ago
        Cruz who I did vote for previously started that drag in family members first.
        He should have known that Trump is someone who hits back.
        Trump would have welcomed tickedf-off Ted's endorsement.
        I found myself nodding in agreement when I heard Bill O'Reilly say if Cruz was not going to endorse Trump he should have stayed home like Kasich.
        Also previously yesterday I heard some minor pundit on talk radio opine that Cruz was with that speech trying to set himself up for a run against a President Shillary but instead committed political suicide.
        I'd hate to see how all that "setting up" plays out with a Supreme Court stacked with libtard judges who will be thinking, "Constitution? What Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!"
        Good luck with that run, Ted.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 months, 1 week ago
          Cruz did not start the vicious personal attacks on him, his wife and his father from Trump.

          Cruz had every right to speak at the convention. He had an enormous number of delegates there. It was not Trump's convention, it was the Republican Party convention of delegates to select the nominee.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  allosaur 9 months, 1 week ago
            If it was not Cruz it was his "staff (Team Cruz)"--wink, wink, nudge nudge-- who put out that risque magazine photo of Trump's wife before Trump did anything as a spouse reprisal.
            Believe I do recall reading that Cruz was playing up to the evangelical Christians at the time.
            It was all, "Hey, Brother Believer, see how naughty Trump's wife is?"
            Yeah, I'll grant Trump was more vicious. Hit Trump? Trump hits back harder. That is the way he is.
            Yeah, he had every right to speak at the convention. Shoulda? .
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months, 1 week ago
              No, it wasn't Cruz. The Utah billboard you are referring to was put up by an unaffiliated PAC and the woman responsible acknowledged it at the time. Trump just saw the billboard and jumped to a conclusion - a conclusion which was demonstrably wrong and upon which he doubled down with his "lyin' Ted" mantra.

              Go back to the original RNC debate. Cruz was asked at that time to say what he disliked about Trump. Cruz's response "I'm wearing a Trump tie." Then he chastised the moderator for trying to get the candidates to attack each other.

              The political attacks started with Trump. He initiated them. He pushed them - especially through his media buddies like the National Enquirer. You support him if you want. I'm writing in someone else.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  allosaur 9 months, 1 week ago
                Yeah, now that's jogging my memory. Fine, I'm not afraid to admit when I' wrong, especially due to a rusty memory. +1 for you.
                But now I'm taking a new tack. It is that unaffiliated PAC who started the spouse attack mess, perhaps managing to manipulate the fiery Trump into reacting as he did so he'd still be taking shots about it as he is up until today.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months, 1 week ago
                  That's rather an indictment of Trump isn't it? The last person I want in the White House is someone who could be so easily emotionally manipulated.

                  Reminds me a lot of Trump freaking out right after Rubio's comments the debate right before he lost Florida. Trump went ballistic when he should have just ignored it. Instead, he was on the talk shows for days insisting on the one hand that he was a bigger man (pun intended) but that he was just going to blow it off because it didn't matter. Walking contradiction. How is he going to react when he meets with Putin? Or with Kim Jong-Il?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
      Having hung with the tea party community for a few months and seen their rabid, say anything Alinsky loyalty to DT, I can honestly say it doesn't take much or anything, for that matter, to get then worked up.

      DT is hope and change revisited, this time for those who think they align on the Right. Scary times.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • 10
        Posted by lovemeemer 9 months, 1 week ago
        I am part of the "tea party community" in Ohio and I can tell you that most are NOT Trump supporters. For the media, leftists, and establishment Republicans to try to give "credit" to the Tea Party for Trump's nomination, or to paint him as some tea party candidate is absolutely absurd and disingenuous. We were doing our own internal polling statewide during the primary and Cruz was getting approx. 97% support from the people in our movement. I don't know how many responded to the surveys but to give you an idea, the email list is about 40,000 names long so even if 10% responded, it's a great sample size to use for the opinions of Tea Party members in Ohio. In my opinion, the minority of Tea Party members who support Trump do so out of a desire to kill the Republican Party, not because they think he actually stands for anything. But the vast majority of the Tea Party community in Ohio passionately supported Cruz in the primary and I would contend most of them refuse to vote for Trump in the general. Those who have said they'll vote for Trump in the general say it's because they think he'll nominate better Supreme Court candidates than Hillary, but still for them, they'll be holding their nose while they're doing it and they feel they're choosing between two evils. I can assure you that the vast majority of "say anything Alinsky loyalists to DT" do not belong to the Tea Party.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
          https://www.teapartycommunity.com

          I suggest signing up (free) and looking around. Everything there is sanction and approved by the moderators. Disgusting propaganda outlet. Deliberately spreading lies.
          After what I experienced, I will never support the Tea Party again.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lovemeemer 9 months, 1 week ago
            yeah, i'm not familiar with that website but there is no one entity that speaks for the "tea party" because the "tea party" is a movement and it's made up of thousands of individual liberty minded groups. like blarman said, that site may be operated by people trying to take down the tea party, but even if the people running it do self-identify as tea party, they don't speak for all. believe me.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
              sigh, I'll contact those I still affiliate from there and provide proof, if it exists.

              Update: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Par...

              It still doesn't change my view of the Tea Party, trhey allow their brand to be used in this obnoxious capacity.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by lovemeemer 9 months, 1 week ago
                how would they be able to stop it? each group is unaffiliated with the others. it's pretty much the definition of grassroots and probably one of the most pure examples we've seen of it in a loooong time. the name isn't copyrighted, there isn't an official logo. it's a movement and the "members" are only members of their local group (if they're members at all - again, they just might consider themselves tea party). the groups can be loosely organized but it's kinda like an amoeba, or better, like herding cats, because each maintains its individual autonomy. it's bottom up from its core, and the members drive each of their groups. if you want to learn more about the tea party movement and why it started, there's an easy to read book called "The Tea Party Manifesto". I would suggest starting there rather than wikipedia because it's actually written by people who were on the ground level at the movement's beginning.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months, 1 week ago
            You do know that the Tea Party itself denied being a political party or officially recognized group and how the Democrats have actually registered and taken that name in several states in order to throw people off?

            The (T)axed (E)nough (A)lready Party was never an official entity. Anyone who has set themselves up as such should be looked at with an extremely jaundiced eye.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
              Blarman, I was Conservative well before the Tea Party rose from that brokers statement that what this country needs is another Boston Tea Party (I remember that clearly thinking its a careless analogy).

              You guys can take all the points you want, the medicine still tastes as disagreeable. The folks on that link are the Tea Party, confirmed by me through association with them. While they aren't a political party they do weigh in on every election seeking to influence. Through facebook a bunch of them who followed my exodus from TPC invited me to their "conservative" page. I lost confidence in those tea party castoffs because they don't really understand Constitutional Conservative.

              If the Tea Party is anything more than the worthless disingenuous sh*theads I've seen then they need to acknowledge the 5 emails I sent when I cared (talking about integrity, the message, and the principles of Conservatism) and protect their brand.

              Don't shoot the messenger. The Tea Party is far from the answer and I don't see it ever being so.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months, 1 week ago
                I have to ask myself as did Juliet of Shakespeare "What's in a name?" To say one is Tea Party and yet not espouse Constitutional values is all I need to know. Actions speak louder than words.

                Those with whom you are trying to converse are obviously not Constitutionalists. I think we both agree on that. And I agree with you that it isn't in a name where we will find those to properly represent our Nation through original Constitutional values. I applaud you for looking beyond the appellation into the reality of principle!
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 9 months, 1 week ago
        Its Hildebeast OR Trump, PERIOD. Can you actually say that Hildebeast is better and will inflict less damage on the USA?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
          So, pick a side of the same fished out of the cesspool crap covered, rusty coin? Scarcely are the two choices different. I've never sat out, this may be the year.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 9 months, 1 week ago
            wow. I must be missing something. I cant see how Hildebeast and Trump are in the slightest two sides of the same coin.
            Hildebeast is a terrible administrator- look at Benghazi and her email server, not to mention her time as Sec of State.
            Hildebeast wants to raise taxes everywhere to feed more socialist programs
            Hildebeast wants to keep Obamacare and make it stronger
            Hildebeast cant open her mouth without getting a reading from her political weathervane.
            Hildebeast cares more about her career's security than the country's security.

            What is it that you fear from Trump?
            Trump is an efficient administrator and will cut government waste.
            Trump raised really cool children- that speaks to his character a lot
            Trump has picked and hired the best employees he can find, and doesnt care if they are women or men.
            Trump tells it like he sees it without political correctness.
            Trump will use his negotiating skills to deal more effectively with foreign countries.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
              After what I saw/experienced of DTs actions and his people's actions, no thanks. I won't condone or help to promote that mentality. If this country's people are stupid enough to elect HC or DT, they deserve what they get.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 9 months, 1 week ago
                But you and I are going to have to suffer the consequences anyway of one OR the other for the next 4 years. Do you really think Trump is worse than Hillary?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
                  The suffrage will only change by degree depending on whose elected. Since I am forced, again, to endure the lesser of two sh*t options (discarding the Constitution)...I'll take full measure.

                  I did not serve this nation for what its become. Let it burn if thats what the morons want, I'll manage.
                  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 9 months ago
        Speaking of the real Tea Party and not the one's that used them to get elected. If I had been screwed, blued and tatooed as they had happen I woul be loyal to anyone who could get me paybacks. Remember that when someone says I'm from the GOP and I'm here to help you.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months ago
          I cringe at the name Tea Party since it relates to a group of business men who disguised themselves as Indians to conduct a criminal act against Britain that would result in violent retaliation. Cowardly.

          I'm not sure why the contemporary Tea Party chose the name (except maybe to emulate the name spoken by some irate stock broker on TV) but recent experience shows most I encountered have no sense of history and feed off of hype.
          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 9 months ago
            Had something to do as an acronym about taxes. Taxed Enough Already. It was a set up by the Dumbos to get votes for certain of their members Joey what's her name from Iowa was one. Went to one of their shindigs in Florida and it reeked of GOP and I remember Pat Masterson what's his name raided the Populist Party and spent all their campaign funs ruining them. Wasn't the Demoncrats it was the GOP that went around stomping any form of revolt or change. One major reason I work to see them destroyed. The whole time they were in bed with the perverts of the left. Right after as a group that they started targeting certain campaigns with what turned out to be RINOs and and ever since they have been part and parcel of the left at best their right wing at worst lap dogs.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, this has been much more civil than other similar debates I've had, and I sincerely appreciate that. CBJ has managed to stay on topic and interjected great points. He(?) hasn't resorted to name-calling or personal attacks like others on this forum. I salute him(?) for this!

    We probably won't agree at the end of the day. Everyone has the right to their own opinion. My belief is that ultimately the truth/reality of the matter will be known.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 9 months ago
      Thank you, I agree. And since our views have strong supporters on both sides of the issue, I think this is a great opportunity to analyze the issue in depth. I think we still have a bit of ground (not a lot) left to cover.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DENelson 9 months ago
    Ted Cruz is a man of principle. This is something that the establishment can not tolerate. Just like John Galt, Ted Cruz is standing tall and bucking the system for much the same reason.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bjrmeno 9 months ago
    I respect Cruz for not playing along based on principles. It is far better than Sanders' begrudgingly and unconvincingly 'endorsing' Clinton. The political landscape is changing. It is a good thing to have potential leaders who are willing to even speak against government corruption.

    I do not know how anything will ever change without individuals running for office that have no interest in political favors.

    I personally believe that all problems stem from the moochers within political corruption rather than the groups fighting for social justice. In many ways they are closely tied at their roots but if you end political corruption, you can allow the system to correct to better benefit everyone.
    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 9 months, 1 week ago
    You get points for recognizing the importance of the responsibilities of citizenship. But let me set forth your real choice and what will happen to your vote if you make the wrong choice. .

    In the General Election your vote in most states will go to the top vote getter.

    That includes write ins.

    If youi write in Mickey Mouse the ballots are in many states discarded or the vote given to the top vote getter.

    In some areas if you leave Prez and Veep blank but vote onlly on other issues on the ballot - same deal.

    At present the only way not to give your vote to Trump or Hillary is the same as don't play cards in a crooked game. The only way to win is 'don't play.' For all I know those rules may have been extended to not voting at all. I don't think that steps been taken...yet.

    So absent the military exercising it's sworn duty there is one thing you can do. But if they do support them.

    Don't vote and don't register as a Show of No Confidence or a refusal to participate in a rigged election. Right now 46% in Presidential races and 50% plus in off year elections have chosen the only way to vote for None Of The Above. And that is by not voting.

    In Political Science crossing lines to vote for another candidate is called 'raiding.' Used in primaries to get weak weak candidate on the General ballot. Not voting at all is called 'undervote.' Those who have no representation in the system and so vote for None Of the Above. Each two year cycle that percentage grows as people realize they have no skin in the game.

    So the first thing is decide. Are you being represented or will you be represented? If the answer is No. - None of the above is accomplished by Not Voting until we can get it listed on each and every ballot.

    Those who choose the lesser of two evils as they put it are publically announcing their willingness to support evil. Ergo Sum they are supporters of evil. Their choice not yours not mine.They chose evil you didn't They decided on their own to join a secular devil's congregation. You didn't.

    Three answers to any question. Right, Wrong, Compromise. Adds up to two wrong and one right answer. Evil is matter of degree. Fighting evil is a simple matter of turning your back and walking away.

    Voting for None Of The Above is the same as not sitting down in a rigged game,by nor playing stupid and expecting a miracle.

    HOWEVER there is time to think about it. Maybe Trump will change for the better. No evidence of that yet. and no chance at all with the Secular Progressive Socialist candidate. But if you are not sure there is no need to rush to judgement.

    No need to decide until the last minute. At that time think about the choices. Evil One, Evil Two. Those you have already assigned that designation or No Evil I'm not going to support you.

    Think about who is really flushing their vote down a public toilet.

    Then turn your back on them and walk away. Just like not playing in a rigged card game.

    Responsibile Citizen or Sucker.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by thinking 9 months ago
    All things work together for good. The fact that Cruz and his supporters were so vocal put pressure on Trump to pick a conservative on the ticket. Pence is as good as Cruz; different, but good. Cruz didn't have the popularity, and if he really wants to see some progress in this country, he should be glad at least we have one conservative on the ticket. It's tough for him, but he was dealing with a tough guy. The complaint from voters is we haven't been tough enough.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DanShu 9 months, 1 week ago
    As far as I'm concerned. the Republican Party committed suicide nominating Trump. They were already living on life support from guys like Cruz and Lee. I used to be an R, but bailed out when the Progressives took over. Most call them RINO's but I see them for what they are.
    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 9 months, 1 week ago
    I have read over Trumps speech. I liked most of it believed some of it applauded wihen he attacked socialism and the liberals head on but was left unfulfilled that he did not support a return to a constitutional republic . There was something about legislatures return to legislating and justices to running courrts and not making law wasn't there. Whatever the impact was not strong eoough. I did not see enouogh about his ready to go Team of experienced leaders hitting the ground running other than the 100 day promise.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    Brother, hear what you want to hear. If you won't even acknowledge what I'm saying there's no point talking. AR never said giving to someone else of your own violation is bad and it doesn't fall into altruism.

    Curious, are you an alter ego for someone else here?
    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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months, 1 week ago
      You are right, in that same lexicon statement Ayn was very specific in stating not to confuse self-sacrifice, i.e. altruism with giving and charity.

      However, the objectivist principals, of rational self-interest would apply equally regardless of your role in society be it a businessman, cop or POTUS.

      You stated clearly and definitively POTUS and I quote you, "If he's elected and If he serves the people of this nation he will do good things, BUT if he has a choice between serving the nation or serving himself we're screwed."

      Now please explain to me how rational self-interest, and "selfishness" is a bad thing and would be detrimental to this country as leader? Or it POTUS the only one who is supposed to sacrifice himself to others...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
        I already have. If he's there to line his pockets and not serve the people of this nation then he more danger than good. As I said, the only self interest any politician should have, particularly the POTUS, can be found in the quote "a rising tide raises all boats." Anything else in that capacity of leadership is wrong, its not governance its fleecing or, to benefit benefactors, cronyism.
        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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months, 1 week ago
    So which "Principle" is he referring to? The one where he promised, pledged and promised to support the Nominee even if it is Trump? Then backed out on his promise and lied?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrJCH...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months, 1 week ago
      Support is not endorse. Endorse is to identify with one's principles, policies, and actions. Cruz is never going to endorse someone who viciously went after his family in unprovoked, personal attacks of such a base level, nor is he going to endorse someone who out of three tries can only get one Constitutional role for government. Nor is Cruz going to endorse someone who has said that he would use Executive Actions in place of Congressional authority to act. Nor is Cruz going to endorse someone who has actively called for adjustments to the First Amendment to allow prosecution of those who disagree with him.

      I can go on and on. Trump is a Democrat. Hillary is a Progressive. And the American People are going to get screwed come November no matter which one we vote for.
      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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months, 1 week ago
        Ted in some of his PROMISES did say the words endorse. I do not think Trump is neither Democrat nor Republican. Trump is a conservative, which he proves by his everyday life and how he runs his businesses.

        Now if you want to compare parties, the GOP today is no different than the Democrats of 25 years ago, and the Democrats of today are no different that the socialists of 25 years ago. So the GOP are really Democrats if you want to really get down to it.

        But under a two party system, Trump appropriately runs under GOP. Next you probably have not watched many Trump interviews over the years. Trump attended and supported the 1988 GOP convention, and back then was considered conservative. Trump endorsed, supported and was responsible for millions to the Romney campaign....Trump also raise millions and millions for McCain...so where you get off thinking he is a Democrat I am not sure because I never recall him taking that much of an active part in any Democrat campaign short of some verbal sound bites while he was speaking as a businessman with his business and the success of his business in mind.

        1980 Rona Barrett and Trump
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5VEj...

        1988 GOP Convention:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usb0i...

        Trump endorsing Romney 2012
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wepQa...

        I am not sure which Donald Trump you are actually referring to.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months, 1 week ago
          Trump as a conservative? You must have a VERY different definition than I do.

          A Conservative would never have supported the Brady Bill. Trump did.
          A Conservative never would have used his political connections to enjoy the fruits of eminent domain. Trump did - several times.
          A Conservative never would have supported Hillary Clinton. Trump did.
          A Conservative would have been able to cite actual powers relegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Trump only managed one of three (defense) while failing miserably on the other two (education and health).
          A Conservative would support defunding Planned Parenthood. Trump won't.
          A Conservative would stand for traditional marriage. Trump doesn't.
          A Conservative wouldn't advocate continued use of Executive Orders. Trump does.
          A Conservative would have taken the call to elect Constitutionalists in a campaign speech as an endorsement. Trump instead bristled.

          "So the GOP are really Democrats if you want to really get down to it."

          And finally you say something with which I agree 100%. Trump is a Democrat, now running against a Progressive (Clinton). There aren't any Conservatives to pick from.

          And if you still want to stay on that "must endorse train", I'd agree with Cruz that before that ever happened Trump would have to apologize - not only for going after his wife, but for his father and the whole "lyin' Ted" mantra. That was way beyond politics. That was "nasty" - another word Trump used often against his opponents but which applies to him in spades.
          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 9 months ago
            Yes on GOP being Democrats and no on definitions of conservative. But it's certainly part although it's one of hundreds of definitions. Worse than definitions of liberals. ValleyGirl Air heads sums them up nicely although it's sitl lnot correct. They use replacement terms and definitions. don't use their terms they will win if iyou do.

            but your next paragraph is exactly correct ending with there are not any Constiutionalist to choose and I don't believe they are allowed. Progressive instead of liberal was exactly correct.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months ago
              So what is your definition of a Conservative?
              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 9 months ago
                I don't have one nor a good one of a liberal. There are too many to pick and choose unless it's by the moment and situation. To the point and this is the point the terminology is both stupid and useless. What do they really mean. Dollars to Doughnuts both words are used to replace just two. Enemy Domestic a perjorative of the opposition

                Don't ask me? I asked the question to begin with and asking me is not giving me an answer?

                The original one said those in power entrenched themselves built a sort of fort and made changes slowly if at all using any and all means to forestall change. Purpose stay in power. They were conservative in their approach and atttude.

                Liberals want change and they want it all and they want it now for the pragmatic needs of the moment. hang the cost and the side effects. Mostlythey want to be the one's in power so they use any means to get that status.

                And then one day the change places. The rest is just slanted propaganda and meaningless crap. A catch all to describe anyone who doesn't lockstep without question vote my way.

                And most evident in Lakoff's writings it keeps him from having to describe the enemy has Constitutional Republic supporters and those folk don't have to call Lakoffs suck progs or Communmists or Nazis'

                So everything is 'nice' swept under the carpet but 'nice.'

                Lots of nice guesses from approved sources and some original thinking but in the end the purpose is to depict life as a reality show aka a lie.

                So when I hear conservative and liberal I think of the used car sales man saaying pre owned or read the sign in the store that says 99.99 and right away i know they think i'm stupid. most are.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months ago
                  Okay. I'll give you mine. In my mind, conservatives and liberals are night and day.

                  A conservative is both a social and a fiscal conservative. A conservative believes in the principles of self-determination, personal responsibility, personal choice and freedom, self-defense, and in allowing all men to speak their minds about all issues (democracy). A conservative believes in not spending more than one takes in - either personally or in government. A conservative believes in limited government, enumerated powers, and checks and balances. A conservative believes in the importance of the traditional family and marriage. A conservative believes in universal law - and a universal lawgiver. Conservatives consider tomorrow.

                  In one sentence, a conservative believes that actions have consequences not of their choosing.

                  A liberal is both a social and a fiscal liberal. A liberal believes in the the principle of might-makes-right, deception-for-gain, living-off-others (both slavery and mooching), and seeks power. A liberal believes that he (or she) is their own god and that rules only apply to others. A liberal believes in social classes and feudalism - of the "haves" and the "have-nots" and of leveraging that system to their own gain because they are inherently part of the class of "haves". A liberal eschews family (because of the necessary sacrifices) instead opting to justify consensual sex, abortion, etc. A liberal has no problem taking out a loan he/she never intends to pay back. Liberals' only concern is for today.

                  In one sentence, a liberal believes that consequences are malleable things.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
          DT is not a conservative.

          DT is an opportunist and he's a businessman. He lacks principles and is entirely in anything for himself. This is fine in business, not as POTUS when you have 320 million people counting on you. If he's elected and If he serves the people of this nation he will do good things, BUT if he has a choice between serving the nation or serving himself we're screwed.
          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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months, 1 week ago
            Really> in it for himself? What is he personally gaining from this run. He has already lost over 500 million in deals, i.e. Profit.

            He has to give up his 757 Jet that is much nicer than AF1, he has to give up his helicopter which is way nicer than Marine one, he has to move out of his Gold plated Penthouse,, he gives up all the personal privacy and freedom he had to go where and when he wants without Government documentation around him. Before this run he was able to get on the phone and call any world leader he wanted to and probably get answered faster than Obama.

            And before you say he gains for his ego how is that bad? Do you think a person with that level of ego would not work his damndest just to look at you and say TOLD YOU SO!!!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
              In it for himself..."Damn, they are killing the economy and taxing me to death, I lost 500 million dollars. I'll fix that, I'll run for POTUS. I'll get my money back and them some."

              Not a big stretch.

              DT doesn't need help with is ego.I do think DT would have the audacity to stand on the temple mount and tell the Jews they can thank/praise him for their peace. Yeah, I think he's that kind of megalomaniac.
              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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months, 1 week ago
            Also isn't that in the spirit of Ayn Rands' Selfishness and her endless lecturing on the virtue of selfishness?

            I would think you would be praising Trump then for his selfishness.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  9 months, 1 week ago
              I never thought Ayn Rand advocated for the kind of crapy things trumpet has done...I see her "selfishness" as my "Celfishness". (each individual cell in your body is responsible for it's own survival and when those needs are met then the value gets passed on) - as in capital investment, values created and traded. A cell in your body would not steal, cheat or defraud another cell in your body.
              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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months ago
                Please provide to me some SPECIFIC PROVEN cases where Trump cheated and defrauded people.

                I never see you provide any proof, or examples with verifiable evidence, only Democratic talking points and name calling.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  9 months ago
                  His use of eminent domain and bankruptcies, never mind his sleeping with the creatures that have caused all the problems we face now. His disloyalty to his wives kind of bothers me too...all of it reflex's upon his character. He also seems to choose the worst of characters to associate with. Recently it has be discovered that his advisers have ties to Russia and a few shady creatures like Duggan and Putin...Now that's not saying he knows or is complicit, I think he is just a poor judge of people...just like the rest of the left.
                  You can vet these out yourself, most is public knowledge.
                  There is much that can't be substantiated therefore is not even worth our time.
                  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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months ago
                    I am So glad you brought these up. First let me address Eminent Domain. Are you familiar with the United States Constitution? I will refer to the 5th amendment of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution.

                    Next Trump NEVER used eminent domain, that would be the case of the Casino redevelopment authority of which Trump was NOT a member. Next the woman you are referring to won the process IN the 5th amendment, and her house is still standing. Also documented was Trump who personally offered the woman (Coking) 4 million dollars for her house that was only appraised at $250,000.00 just to help avoid any litigation. Long and short she won, then got pissed off when real estate values tanked due to Democrats, and could not sell her house for 93k. That was not Trump's fault that was hers. Buy low sell High.

                    Next Bankruptcy. Trump has started and runs over 600 businesses, and only 4 have been filed under any bankruptcy. The 4 ONLY 4 were filed under Chapter 11. that was to reorganize the debt that needed done to SAVE JOBS and the business, again due to Democratic policies that tanked Atlantic city. Trump later sold those casinos and paid off the debt in the Chapter 11.

                    Chapter 11 is not illegal, no unethical under the circumstances, and yes this is well documented and I am guess you have not done much REAL research on these topics.

                    Regarding Russia. dost thou forget during WWII Russia and he USA were close allies? Not as close as Britain but still close allies. It was a Democrat that screwed over Russia and started the Cold War, and a Republican that won the cold war.

                    I am curious why you think maintaining Russia as an enemy is a good thing? Trump never said he admired Putin, he said Putin was a strong leader, unlike Obama. This is a FACT.

                    I realize that your reasoning on these things is 100% emotional and illogical, but I have presented FACTS to you regarding your democratic whining points that are total misrepresentations of the story.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  9 months ago
                      No not emotional...observational! I've seen and read all that, bottom line is his Character is lacking. He acts like a child..and that means he's not 100% trustworthy. Haven't we had enough of child like idiots in government...wouldn't you like to have conscious human adults representing us for a change?

                      There is a lot more going on with putin and russia...trump seems always to associate with many shady characters.
                      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 9 months ago
                        Acts like a child or is acting like a child and is the act or the acting perceived the same way by all who view him. Some stomps and cheer! Some turn in disgust but I submit though i'd rather see this accolade go elsewhere Many of his followers are disgusted, deject and feel abandoned much the same way as a latch key kid with two working parents. Bernie who by the way is no longer a Democrat. but back to being an honest Independent in disguise or sociaist extremist re-registered today. Where do his followers go? Democrat socialists who failed them or to someone like Trump who defies the status quo?

                        Shady characters? He's as freaking politician of course he associates with shady characters. On the other hand his opponent IS a shady character. .
                        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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months ago
                        I have watched and seen Trump interviews since 1980. There were 2 interviews specifically that tell you his character.

                        One was 1980 with Rona Barrett, and one was 1988 with Opra.

                        The one in 1980, Trump in his 30's at the time was asked about running for President and he was very clear he would not be interested, because and I quote "It is a mean life." In 1988 he told Opra he would never rule out a run for President but things would have to be and I quote" So bad."

                        Now, if you want to WIN in politics you need to be mean, ruthless, and have a mind for strategy on how to destroy your opponents. Trump's history is never give in and never give up, so when he announced I told everyone this will be a wild ride because he was going to do what he KNOWS he has to do to win.

                        Is he is displaying to you a lack of character he is fighting fire with fire, and taking on the competition with their own rules or lack thereof.

                        What "shady" characters are you referring to specifically? Union Boss's? Well if you want to build in New York you better learn how to deal with them. I will refer you to Rodney Dangerfield and "Back to School" in the professors classroom.

                        You do not build a 10+ billion dollar empire being childish. He is doing what is required to beat his opponents in a MEAN LIFE.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  9 months ago
                          Besides his reported dealings with mobsters...I know, I know...it's a NY values thing. But it's no secret trump is a fan of russia and putin-an x KGB kinda guy. putin is not a socialist nor a communist...he is an Oligarch ( rule by a small group of creatures - usually the worst of creatures.)

                          Next, trumps trusted advisers: Paul Manafort (sp) was an adviser to the pres of Ukraine...you know, the guy that was removed...he's still a fan of putin.

                          Carter Page, trumps foreign adviser is a major investor of Gazprom, which is run by putin.

                          Richard Burt (sp) is on the board of directors of Alpha Bank (russia's bank of America).

                          Upon advice of these creatures trump requested the GOP ease it's stance on russia and it's ambitions.

                          Now, it doesn't appear that trump is aware of the corrupt influence of his advising creatures but you also must realize that putin and his adviser, Alexander Dugan wants to create chaos by influencing elections all over the world. He wants a weak Europe and America; he, like the isis creatures, wants to collapse the West and to create his own version of the New World Order.

                          Now, do you still think trump has great taste in advisers...he doesn't appear to be as smart as you believe...he is vulnerable in his ignorance.
                          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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months ago
                            You're have ruined your credibility. Please read who is on the board of directors of Alpha Bank.
                            https://www.alpha.gr/page/default.asp...

                            I do not see Putin listed in any management role either...

                            I do not see any Richard Burt. Alpha Bank in Russia, of course the government runs the bank really? You are seriously reaching, even to the point of making things up. So sad.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  9 months ago
                              This stuff was vetted out by the Blaze and Buck Sexton - an x CIA guy...No one is making things up here, these are the connections.
                              No one is saying trump is complicit...just not a good judge of Advisors. The question to ask is why do his advisors have or had connections and investments in russia...seems to me, he himself, didn't do a very good job of vetting.

                              You won't see putin listed at gazprom...he's an oligarch...they run everything.

                              http://maglobal.com/about-us/our-team...
                              Ambassador Burt serves on the board of Deutsche Bank’s closed-end fund group and is also a trustee of the UBS family of mutual funds (New York board). In addition, he is an Advisor to EADS North America’s board and a member of the Alfa Bank’s Senior Advisory Board in Moscow.
                              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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months ago
                                Vetted by The Blaze. That is laughable. I provided you the link to the formal list of board members and management. Also if you take the time to look at the FORMAL official stock filings, The Blaze (Glenn Beck) is full of crap. I do not Trust ANY 100% partisan person, especially when they obviously have serious mental issues.

                                Now you are changing the subject to Deutsche Bank. Again your credibility is totally gone. You apparently do not do your own research and only listen to and take the word of the people who tickle your ears.

                                Your claim Putin runs the bank, They are in Russia, Government runs most everything...they are communist. Your point is totally invalid, coupled with your complete loss of credibility now.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by  $  9 months ago
                                  Glenn is not partisan and the Blaze is the best at vetting things out...You obviously haven't watched Glenn's network and are just being emotional...laughing- gotch ya.
                                  Oh and you missed this: and a member of the Alfa Bank’s Senior Advisory Board in Moscow. From his own dossier page.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Hot_Black_Desiato replied 9 months ago
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months ago
                            Making things up is what Cruz and Hillary do very well. as do their blind followers.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  9 months ago
                              Cruz never made anything up.
                              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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months ago
                                Sure....whatever you say....Cruz was always out for himself.

                                Where was Cruz, Rubio and Graham on the Audit the Fed vote? MISSING!!!.

                                Cruz made an oath when he took office, and like Rubio and Graham, never bother showing up for work to vote on the bills that they claim were so important. Cruz never wanted Audit the Fed to go through because if his and his wife's DIRECT financial debt to Goldman Sachs and several other banks.

                                I think you need to really open your eyes and look at the actual actions of Cruz and his duplicitous actions, and total failure as a Senator.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by  $  9 months ago
                                  The Vote was already lost even with Cruz and Rubio...ya gota keep up and you never heard the truth nor vetted it out properly...like the source...about his wife. Not to mention, do you think trump hasn't taken out a loan from these big banks...
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Hot_Black_Desiato replied 9 months ago
            • Posted by randumari 9 months ago
              Hot_Black_Desiato, that is an insightful point.

              There are other virtues in Ayn Rand's moral objectivism code. One such virtue is 'integrity.'
              If the POTUS agrees to fill a job that requires improving the US, s/he is under the spotlight to fulfill his promise. If he then acts contrary to this "to line his pockets," he should be at risk of breaching contract, and is certainly at risk of losing his reputation and self-respect. Ayn Rand's paramour Nathaniel Brandon explains the link between integrity and self-respect.

              My point is that a person who agrees to become president and take the presidential vows has a self-interest to act in the best interest of the country, at least as far as his job description is concerned.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  9 months ago
                agreed...the one thing I always wanted to ask some of these creatures is...Don't you live here too! Are you willing to sacrifice your own safety and future for the stupid things you think and do?
                Do you really think you won't be effected?

                I would doubt that they could honestly answer those questions because they are not capable of thinking nor accounting for their decisions...if we were to call it that...not sure how not having a mind, nevermind a brain works in practice.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
              You clearly took from what I said what you wanted to make points from.

              "This is fine in business, not as POTUS when you have 320 million people counting on you. If he's elected and If he serves the people of this nation he will do good things, BUT if he has a choice between serving the nation or serving himself we're screwed."

              I am entirely for self-interest, thats Objectivist, thats Conservative, AND thats entirely American. POTUS is not a job for self interests its a service job for the people of the US.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
                At least now I have an idea who else take my points. Shame of it is there is nothing in what I said that isn't true, and I think you know it.
                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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months, 1 week ago
                  Please also explain to me how the Objectivist, Virtue of Selfishness, fails to work as POTUS?

                  If this is true, and the Virtue of Selfishness does not apply to a Leader i.e. POTUS then you would by default indicate a major massive philosophical flaw in objectivism.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
                    A king would apply more to your view moreso than an elected leader. In this country representative government means they are supposed to be acting in the best interest of the people who elected them - that is the role. Aside from "a rising tide lifts all boats" the POTUS should have zero self interest when it comes to his official decisions, no?
                    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 9 months ago
                      I'm going to partly disagree and agree. Egoism or the satisfaction of self is an individual thing. In that regard i am 100% greedy. Were I President I would lust after earning accolades for upholding the part of my oath of office that says, "to the best of my abilty' thus the Virtue of Selfishness does apply.

                      Oboo me on the other hand is an egotist. He cares nothing about doing the best he can unless this is his best in which case he should never have been elected. Then you would be saying he got elected not by virtue of ability but by virtue of shoe polish.

                      He wants a legacy that goes far beyond his abilty and is egotistical enough to demand it with no evidence of any quality of accomplishment.

                      Your point though isd valid. One should be blind to self interest and telescopic in the public interest while never forgetting the Prez is one member of the public. That's part of 'best of my abilities.'

                      Hillary stated this week she and Bill had retired heavily in debt so much she tried to steal the nation's china - but forgot a few thingsl. Book Deals, Speech deals etc. were just around the corner. Then too thereare the hidden assets.
                      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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months, 1 week ago
                      So the POTUS should display "Altruism?" That is the result of zero self-interest.

                      What did Ayn say about Altruism? I am surprised at your reasoning course on that.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
                        I'm a Constitutional Conservative. Who said the POTUS was going there for handouts? I'm talking about doing his constitutionally mandated duties, not lining his own pockets.

                        I suspect you understood this.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  9 months, 1 week ago
                        I think the Laws AND especially the Law Makers should be Altruistic...made not in "SELF interest".
                        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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months, 1 week ago
                          Didn't Ayn Rand call altruism EVIL? I do not recall her EVER saying selfishness is good but not for elected leaders.

                          Isn't any self-sacrifice bad according to Ayn Rand.

                          Seems to me rational self-interest should be a primary focus of an elected leader. ANYTHING they do should be beneficial to themselves, and by extension everyone else too.

                          Rational Self-Interest does not imply ONLY for me, but if I benefit today, I am not harmed tomorrow.

                          Bad policies harm the POTUS and his family just as much in the end. Seems to me based on some of your replies that you betray the objectivist principals that you hammer other people with.

                          So Objectivist self-interest is only applicable to "some people?"
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
                            The only thing evil about altruism is if its not voluntary - taxes are not voluntary, neither is coercion (religious or social).
                            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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months, 1 week ago
                              Ayn Rand Lexicon.

                              What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

                              Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

                              Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”


                              Altruism is evil in itself..voluntary or not. Altruism in any form is a direct violation of the oath, and the value of one's own life.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months, 1 week ago
                                Again, you hear what you want to stump you point.

                                VOLUNTARY

                                That in no way says you must do or should do anything for anyone else. Voluntary is individual choice.
                                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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months, 1 week ago
                                  Ayn Rand Lexicon:

                                  Those who start by saying: “It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others”—end up by saying: “It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others.”
                                  *******

                                  Voluntary or not...

                                  Next Trump is being selected by the People based on what he is saying. there is no wool being pulled over. Gary Johnson however by his VP pick is betraying what he claims are Libertarian principals.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • AJAshinoff replied 9 months, 1 week ago
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months, 1 week ago
                  If we assume Trump is being totally selfish, and you listened to his interview with Oprah in 1988, he very clearly said he would ONLY run for President if and I quote" Things got bad enough."

                  If things got bad enough that would threaten HIS way of life, and "fixing" the problems would not only solve HIS issues but by extension, everyone else's too.

                  As POTUS, if you want your own family to not lose the freedoms in this country you do something about it. Seems to me that "selfishness" might be the BEST quality for a POTUS, not a POTUS that is being altruistic.

                  I will leave the altruistic bullshit to Democrats and Hillary.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 9 months, 1 week ago
    But then he turned around and revealed that it wasn't principles he was fighting for, he was pissed off because Trump dissed his wife and father. It got ugly, and certainly Trump's wife wasn't -- and isn't immune from continuous attack. As to the National Enquirer picture of Cruz's father, the article was published material, not something Trump made up.

    If Cruz thought he could run a campaign against the liberals without facing blistering criticism and insults he was vastly ignorant of modern politics.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 months, 1 week ago
      If the National Enquirer, run by Trump's buddy, is his paper of record supposedly justifying smears, it shows even more reckless disregard for objectivity. Trump's outrageous schoolyard bullying mentality of smears and taunts substituting for knowledge and discussion of policy has extended far beyond his outrageously false personal attacks on Cruz's wife and father. Cruz's disgust with Trump is not alone among the record-setting negative ratings Trump has created for himself.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  DrZarkov99 9 months, 1 week ago
    You must really be desperate to quote Mark Levin, a member of the same slavish, slobbering camp as Glenn Beck, who declared Cruz as "God's chosen" to lead America. Cruz's display of petulance had nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with personal pique. He's really pissed at the idiot Republican voters that couldn't see his glowing, innate superiority. Childish anger and spite do not constitute principle in my book.

    I see several people that credit Trump with discrediting the pledge. but does anyone forget that each candidate made the pledge as individuals? I say that each candidate who refused to honor his personal pledge is dishonored and unworthy of any further consideration for the office. That includes Jeb Bush, whose petty, pouty interview explaining why he wasn't going to attend or endorse made him another politician who delivered a public career suicide note, joining Cruz in the club.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 9 months, 1 week ago
    His opinion is his right to form and express, but all this diatribe did was provide Hillary more advantage. I doubt even Cruz believes Hillary is better than Donald. Therefore, it is counter-productive and spiteful.

    If he really wanted to argue for the Constitution, he should've said "I support the Constitution and a free America. Although we've had our differences, I believe a Trump presidency will support this goal better than Hillary's totalitarian, state-decided and enforced fascism."

    Although I was a Cruz supporter for his fiscal policy and Constitutional position, I see that others were right about his lack of charisma and aggressive, spiteful behavior.
    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 9 months, 1 week ago
      I question if any of them are pro Constitutional Republic oriented. Not something you can safely be in the left wing be it the Dinos or the Rinos.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 9 months, 1 week ago
        Perhaps, but everything is relative. Lesser of all evils.
        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 9 months, 1 week ago
          That is your individual choice. You defined it as evil and then give it a pass. That is your choice and your responsibility. Evil is Evil. A is A. Do not ask for forgiveness I won't grant it. No one else can. That's your problem. Is everyone perfect or even some? No. But then that is my problem not yours and right now I choose to turn my back on evil. No exceptions.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 9 months, 1 week ago
            I doubt you do in whole very much.
            Do you use a computer from a company that pays taxes to an evil institution? Do you receive a pension from an institution supporting evil? Do you benefit from the military stability offered by an evil institution?
            If one makes no exceptions, one exists almost alone, and almost no one does that. Rather, almost everyone, puts up with some compromise (evil if you like). I choose to vote and voice in a manner to convert others and try to reform the system. This process is a path from "here" to "there", and the only sterling, no-compromise step is the last. "No compromise", is not an effective strategy in winning any fight or argument, unless you hold all the cards.

            I support Gary Johnson, because my vote doesn't really count. If it did, I would vote from Trump over Hillary, because that is on the path to "there". If Cruz really believed in the Constitution, he would also support Johnson and try that path, or throw in with Trump. All he did was throw a childish temper tantrum, and hand the advantage to Hillary.
            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 9 months, 1 week ago
              Poor you can do better. The answer to your question is no one. But then you are spouting your version of evil and it's your version and you that labels it evil then excused your self for supporting it. When you look in the mirror don't describe what you see by attaching it to me. When I look in the mirror I see someone who is constantly 'trying,' occasionally 'failing,' or 'stumbling,' but is not making excuses to continue to support what is wrong. Apparently you rely on that bright shiny silver mirror at the end. Repentence I think it's called. I don't buy that theory. At the end is too late. My standards not yours.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 9 months, 1 week ago
                I feel like I've been accosted by a combination of the Mad hatter and Sophocles.

                This is simple. I live in a country, and like most, benefit from this country. Choices can be orthogonalized into 1) improving the country, or 2) making it worse, with an irrelevant neutral fine line. "Better" and "worse" is of course one's own definition. I assert, one must participate in this set of choices, or decide to live aside and be agnostic (move on, Go Gulch, etc).
                If one chooses to remain in the system, all decisions have the aforementioned "better" or "worse" consequences. In my opinion, Hillary is the "worst" potential presidential outcome, Constitution included. Therefore, any vote of action which supports Hillary is "worse". Simple...so simple. Do not think the "better/worse" argument can be defeated.

                Now, one can make the argument that the path is non-monotonic, and a step in the "wrong" direction may precipitate a larger trend in the better direction. Martyrdom might be an example. If you are making that argument, fine. However, the "better/worse" consequences is an axiom.

                I have no idea what you are talking about WRT to repentance excuses, or spouting evil. A good man dying of thirst in the desert does no one a favor by refusing a drink from an "evil" totalitarian muslim. The good man can do much more good, continuing to be good than by making a point no one sees.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  CBJ 9 months, 1 week ago
                So was Ayn Rand evil for supporting Nixon twice? I say no. She simply made her choice between what she saw as the best (or least worst) of two undesirable alternatives.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 months, 1 week ago
    Anyone but Hillary.
    I was a Ted supporter, but what he did yesterday was politically stupid. He should have stayed home. The other option is to meet privately with Trump and come to an accommodation so he can endorse him. Perhaps a Trump apology could be made What he did will make it hard for him to return to the arena, and might even send him to the dustbin. Except for the religion part, he would have made a supportable candidate.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months, 1 week ago
      It was a calculated gamble, but not stupid. What Cruz did was what he has done all the time he has served in elected office: make principles - and specifically the principles in the Constitution - more important than people or party. This is just more of that. Cruz goes along with the party for funding reasons, but his ideology is that of a Constitutionalist. He recognizes that he won't get the funding he needs for re-election outside the two major parties and is morally opposed to everything in the Democratic Party platform, so he chooses the Republicans. Not really any different than Rand Paul. And a Texas Republican is very different than a New Jersey Republican (looking at you Chris Christie).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 9 months, 1 week ago
        Standing up for his principles is not stupid. Handling it by going to the convention and making enemies seems stupid to me. It could work for him if Trump fails in a big way, but other than that, I think he's shot himself in the foot.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 9 months, 1 week ago
          Cruz is hoping that there are still enough people left in this nation who revere the Constitution AND that Donald Trump will be the Donald Trump we have come to see: a narcissistic power-monger and bully. If Hillary wins (which I can't discount despite how truly beyond deplorable she is as not only a person but as a candidate), Cruz gets to stand up and tell the people - including the RNC - "I represent an alternative". If Donald wins, either he carries out the duties of the President as a Constitutionalist would (in which case his "vote for a Constitutionalist works") or he gets to point again to his own stalwart defense of the Constitution and tell the RNC once again - you guys really don't get it, do you.

          If that's a gamble, I'm taking those odds.
          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 9 months, 1 week ago
            If he wins he IS the RNC and I hope he severs their connection witht he DNC. First thing to do is clean house and get rid of the RInos and NeoCons. Hard enough to be President without that bunch to contend with.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 9 months, 1 week ago
            OK.
            I was hoping for Cruz to get a second bite of the apple, in 4 or 8 years. He is a good candidate and a basically good man. I was hoping he would stay away and then he'd have until November to comment or if Trump wins and I think he will, he could be a balancing force in the senate. As it stands, he may just become disregarded.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CBJ 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: “Before one may argue discrimination, one MUST prove equality of circumstance.”

    Must one really? I’m finding very little in Constitutional law or case law that relates to this phrase. The little that I have found is mostly concerned with racial issues such as affirmative action. Ideologically, the phrase typically is used in support of socialism and the welfare state.

    In all the legal cases I have been able to find that deal with this issue, there was a direct relationship between the laws in question and the circumstances alleged to be unequal. In addition, the validity of such laws hinged on whether they mitigated the inequality or created and maintained it. In the case of school segregation, the issue was equal access to education, and the segregation laws created the inequality that denied equal access to African-Americans. In the case of affirmative action, the law was defended as an effort to mitigate the inequality of circumstance allegedly created by past discrimination. One may agree or disagree with affirmative action (I disagree with it), but there was a tight connection between the affirmative action laws themselves and the inequalities of circumstance they were designed to rectify.

    This connection is totally missing in the marriage laws of Kentucky and several other states. In multiple ways, the issuance of marriage licenses by these states confers a privileged legal status on married couples in areas that have nothing to do with anatomy, sexual orientation, personal commitment or any of the other issues you bring up. As I pointed out earlier, these include tax status, inheritance, spousal social security benefits, immunity from testimony against a spouse, eligibility for a spouse’s employer-based health insurance, and decision-making if a spouse is incapacitated.

    The following quotation is on point:

    “The law is plainly part of people’s circumstances, and circumstances are plainly unequal when the law forbids some to lead the lives they think best for them only because others disagree.” – Equal Freedom, edited by Stephan Darwall, University of Michigan Press, 1995.

    If marriage licenses did not fundamentally alter the legal status of married couples, it would be relatively trivial whether or not gay couples had access to them. However, in today’s legal, social and cultural environment, the ability to obtain such a license is a vital means of securing their equality of circumstance.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by kyllacon 9 months ago
      The special circumstances created by marriage law recognized that the family is the foundation of a stable society and were designed to promote support a stable economically beneficial climate in which to raise a family.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 9 months ago
        Does extending these “special circumstances” to gay couples make society any less stable? Does extending these “special circumstances” to gay couples interfere with promoting “a stable economically beneficial climate in which to raise a family”? Remember, we’re talking about legal privileges such as tax status, inheritance, spousal social security benefits, immunity from testimony against a spouse, eligibility for a spouse’s employer-based health insurance, and decision-making if a spouse is incapacitated. How does it “benefit society” to give these privileges to traditional couples while denying them to gay couples?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by kyllacon 9 months ago
          My point wasn't to engage in an argument it was to illustrate the thinking behind the creation of the laws that benefit married couples and by extension their families. When the laws were written they weren't meant to be exclusionary to homosexual couples since there wasn't a mechanism for them to get married neither civil nor religious and since same sex couples can't biologically reproduce there would be no point of promoting same sex marriage. A true objectivist would suggest that instead of including homosexual couples in the special circumstances created by the law those laws would be eliminated therefore everyone would be equal under the law and married couples homosexual or not would be subjected to the consequences or benefits of their economic realities based on the results of their decisions just like single people.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  CBJ 9 months ago
            Re: "A true objectivist would suggest that instead of including homosexual couples in the special circumstances created by the law those laws would be eliminated."
            I agree, and I have stated so elsewhere on this thread. You didn't suggest that in your previous post, so I had no way of knowing your position on the issue. My position is that until such special circumstances are eliminated, they should be available to all couples.

            Re: "My point wasn't to engage in an argument "
            Your post was in response to my post, and since this is a forum for discussion and debate, I assumed you wished to participate in the online conversation and were open to responses.
            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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Then they are NO LEADER.

    The vote was 54. Cruz, Rubio and Graham, would have made 57, and if they were any kind of leader, and even half the politician Harry Reed is, they would have managed the 3 remaining vote.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  9 months ago
      Crazy demented reed? Now that's funny
      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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months ago
        Ried being crazy or not, liked or not, honest or not, nice or not is not the point.

        Ried got crap done because he was able to lead people by negotiation or arm twisting to get things done.

        Cruz cannot get anything done because he is not now, nor has ever been a leader.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  9 months ago
          All the WRONG crap...never created value or solved a real problem in his life...he and palosive are the dumbest of all the parasitical humanoids in the kakistocracy. Most are just plain retarded.
          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 Hot_Black_Desiato 9 months ago
            Right crap or wrong crap again not the point.

            Reid had a vision and Reid got it done through his leadership, and or arm twisting. Cruz has gotten NOTHING done, and takes no initiative to either arm twist or build a consensus to get the RIGHT thing done.

            I am positive he did not want an audit the fed because he and his wife would have been exposed with major conflicts of interest.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  9 months ago
              That last point is just silly, Rand told him, the vote would not go. The best of the best tried and failed to find anything there. And I read His wifes commentary in opposition to those that want to rule the world for themselves.
              As for arm twisting...not a fan of that kind of politics. That's how we got into this mess...mob tactics. That's what marxist do.
              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 9 months ago
      Primaries are run by parties and parties alone by law. They operate on pluralities and turn them in to landslides. the two current methods is vote stealing by the winner take all method and super delegates.

      Absent winner take all which was a complaint lodged and the dumbos ignored their own rules on the subject but absent those votes Cruz would have been on top. Doesn't matter

      The system has been in place for 240 years no one cares enough to change it.

      General election is majority only if a plurality results goes to Congress. Same deal no one in 240 years has worked to change it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo